❓ Question regarding the accuracy of the police commissioner's advice on the Leader of the Opposition's blood alcohol level and accusations of misleading the public. The Minister's response deflects and attacks the opposition's credibility.
AnsweredQoN 268Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I have a supplementary question. Is the minister saying that the police commissioner’s advice that the official police blood alcohol level calculated at the time of driving was .038 per cent is wrong? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
That is an interesting use of words. Members should take note of the word “calculated”. Perhaps I need to give the Leader of the Opposition a little explanation, because sometimes he does not understand things; nor does his deputy leader. I will tell the house what his deputy leader said to Paul Murray. Paul Murray said - . . . what you have just confirmed to me now, which I couldn’t get out of the Minister . . . - Then he corrected himself - out of the Police Commissioner, but I understand he told Matt Birney yesterday, is that the preliminary reading was actually 0.038. The transcript then reads - OMODEI That’s right . . . The preliminary test was a test taken in the Leader of the Opposition’s driveway. Therefore, would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition like to retract that statement now and say that he was misleading people when he spoke on radio? Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: That is an interesting use of words. Members should take note of the word “calculated”. Perhaps I need to give the Leader of the Opposition a little explanation, because sometimes he does not understand things; nor does his deputy leader. I will tell the house what his deputy leader said to Paul Murray. Paul Murray said - . . . what you have just confirmed to me now, which I couldn’t get out of the Minister . . . - Then he corrected himself - out of the Police Commissioner, but I understand he told Matt Birney yesterday, is that the preliminary reading was actually 0.038. The transcript then reads - OMODEI That’s right . . . The preliminary test was a test taken in the Leader of the Opposition’s driveway. Therefore, would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition like to retract that statement now and say that he was misleading people when he spoke on radio? Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
That is an interesting use of words. Members should take note of the word “calculated”. Perhaps I need to give the Leader of the Opposition a little explanation, because sometimes he does not understand things; nor does his deputy leader. I will tell the house what his deputy leader said to Paul Murray. Paul Murray said - . . . what you have just confirmed to me now, which I couldn’t get out of the Minister . . . - Then he corrected himself - out of the Police Commissioner, but I understand he told Matt Birney yesterday, is that the preliminary reading was actually 0.038. The transcript then reads - OMODEI That’s right . . . The preliminary test was a test taken in the Leader of the Opposition’s driveway. Therefore, would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition like to retract that statement now and say that he was misleading people when he spoke on radio? Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
That’s right . . .
Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: That is an interesting use of words. Members should take note of the word “calculated”. Perhaps I need to give the Leader of the Opposition a little explanation, because sometimes he does not understand things; nor does his deputy leader. I will tell the house what his deputy leader said to Paul Murray. Paul Murray said - . . . what you have just confirmed to me now, which I couldn’t get out of the Minister . . . - Then he corrected himself - out of the Police Commissioner, but I understand he told Matt Birney yesterday, is that the preliminary reading was actually 0.038. The transcript then reads - OMODEI That’s right . . . The preliminary test was a test taken in the Leader of the Opposition’s driveway. Therefore, would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition like to retract that statement now and say that he was misleading people when he spoke on radio? Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
That is an interesting use of words. Members should take note of the word “calculated”. Perhaps I need to give the Leader of the Opposition a little explanation, because sometimes he does not understand things; nor does his deputy leader. I will tell the house what his deputy leader said to Paul Murray. Paul Murray said - . . . what you have just confirmed to me now, which I couldn’t get out of the Minister . . . - Then he corrected himself - out of the Police Commissioner, but I understand he told Matt Birney yesterday, is that the preliminary reading was actually 0.038. The transcript then reads - OMODEI That’s right . . . The preliminary test was a test taken in the Leader of the Opposition’s driveway. Therefore, would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition like to retract that statement now and say that he was misleading people when he spoke on radio? Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
That’s right . . .
Mr P.D. Omodei : All I know is that the legal limit - Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : All I know is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fibbing. Admit the fib. Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mr P.D. Omodei : The Leader of the Opposition’s blood alcohol level was confirmed to be .038 per cent. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the preliminary test was .038 per cent. Paul Murray believed him. Maybe all the listeners to 6PR believed him too. I have had to enter this debate and correct the information because those people have tried to mislead the public. I refer to the calculation. That calculation is dependent on whether the Leader of the Opposition is capable of telling the truth and whether he told the truth to the police officers. Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the police officers concerned the truth about what he had had to drink that night? From what I have now heard, the member for Dawesville is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blew .047 per cent back at the Kensington Police Station, and then it was calculated back to .038 per cent. That is entirely dependent on when the Leader of the Opposition had his last drink. When did the Leader of the Opposition have his last drink? Would he like to tell us now? No, he would not. Listen; the Leader of the Opposition should be a man and show some leadership. He should cop it on the chin and say, “I had a near miss; I was wrong.” It is not the fault of the equipment, it is not the motivation of the officers who followed him and it is not that the Commissioner of Police provides briefing notes on a routine basis to the minister that is at issue. It is a matter of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour. His credibility is on the line.
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.