❓ Opposition questions the Attorney General's involvement in the retrenchment of Ken Bates, a senior prosecutor facing disciplinary charges. The Attorney General denies instructing or suggesting the severance payment, stating it was the DPP's decision.
AnsweredQoN 589Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MR KEN BATES — RETRENCHMENT
(1) Can the Attorney General detail to the house his personal involvement in initiating the retrenchment of senior Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutor Ken Bates? (2) Did he instruct, request or suggest that DPP Robert Cock finalise Mr Bates’ retrenchment prior to his leaving his office? (3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER
(1) Can the Attorney General detail to the house his personal involvement in initiating the retrenchment of senior Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutor Ken Bates? (2) Did he instruct, request or suggest that DPP Robert Cock finalise Mr Bates’ retrenchment prior to his leaving his office? (3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(2) Did he instruct, request or suggest that DPP Robert Cock finalise Mr Bates’ retrenchment prior to his leaving his office? (3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(2) Did he instruct, request or suggest that DPP Robert Cock finalise Mr Bates’ retrenchment prior to his leaving his office? (3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
(1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper : As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates—just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is absolutely and utterly incorrect. Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr R.H. Cook : What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process.
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.