❓ Mr. Love questions the Premier regarding the Ombudsman's travel and approval process, given a CCC investigation and prior awareness of the issue. The Speaker ruled the question permissible, and the Premier responded, stating the Ombudsman's independence and the ongoing CCC investigation.
AnsweredQoN 174Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Ombudsman — Corruption And Crime Commission
Inquiry — PREMIER'S OFFICE
174. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Premier:
It was revealed on Monday that
jetsetting WA Ombudsman Chris Field was required to seek ministerial approval for leave as per his appointment terms for his
round-the-world trips. Given that a Corruption and Crime Commission hearing had to be adjourned as Mr Field travelled to Uzbekistan just a few
weeks ago, and the Premier's chief of staff had been made aware of the
issue of his travel in October 2023, will the Premier please advise who is the
responsible minister to whom Mr Field must seek approval, and why was this most
recent leave allowed?
Point of Order
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : I seek
clarification on the appropriateness of the question. The officer the member is speaking of is accountable to the
Parliament, and there is also currently a CCC investigation underway and we
would not want any answers to unintentionally interfere with that
investigation. I seek your advice, Madam Speaker.
Ruling by Speaker Ruling
The
SPEAKER : When a question was raised previously on a matter in
connection with the Ombudsman, I took some
advice about the current CCC hearing. The CCC is not a court of law and Mr
Field has not been charged with anything. It is just an investigative
body; it is not sub judice as such so it is not precluded by our standing
orders. I think the words I used previously were that people should use some
caution with their language. The question itself does not fit the sub judice
ruling.
The next question is whether it
pertains to the Premier's portfolio areas because ministers can be
asked questions about only their portfolios. Leaders of parties, as the Premier
is, can be asked slightly broader questions. I will take further advice. I will
see whether the Deputy Clerk wants to add anything.
As I was commenting, the matter is
not sub judice as such, so that does not disallow the question. As I previously
commented, ministers can be asked about their portfolio. Standing order 75 in
chapter 12 states that questions to ministers and members may be asked of —
(1) Ministers regarding matters under
the Minister's administrative responsibility;
(2) the Leader of a party in
government regarding that party's policies;
The first footnote states —
Questions to Ministers should relate
to public affairs with which they are connected, to proceedings pending in
Parliament, and to matters of administration for which they are responsible,
but not to matters arising from a Minister's actions as a private
citizen �
The Leader of the House is right:
the Ombudsman is responsible to this Parliament. However, I think it is also
arguable that it relates to public affairs that are connected with the Premier's
role. I reiterate that my philosophy from having dealt with the police
portfolio for many years is that, by and large, people should not prejudge
things. The potential always exists for
legal action of some form to be taken in a court of law at a later stage. Being
mindful of that, I ask the Premier to respond to the question in the way
he sees fit.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Inquiry — PREMIER'S OFFICE
174. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Premier:
It was revealed on Monday that
jetsetting WA Ombudsman Chris Field was required to seek ministerial approval for leave as per his appointment terms for his
round-the-world trips. Given that a Corruption and Crime Commission hearing had to be adjourned as Mr Field travelled to Uzbekistan just a few
weeks ago, and the Premier's chief of staff had been made aware of the
issue of his travel in October 2023, will the Premier please advise who is the
responsible minister to whom Mr Field must seek approval, and why was this most
recent leave allowed?
Point of Order
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : I seek
clarification on the appropriateness of the question. The officer the member is speaking of is accountable to the
Parliament, and there is also currently a CCC investigation underway and we
would not want any answers to unintentionally interfere with that
investigation. I seek your advice, Madam Speaker.
Ruling by Speaker Ruling
The
SPEAKER : When a question was raised previously on a matter in
connection with the Ombudsman, I took some
advice about the current CCC hearing. The CCC is not a court of law and Mr
Field has not been charged with anything. It is just an investigative
body; it is not sub judice as such so it is not precluded by our standing
orders. I think the words I used previously were that people should use some
caution with their language. The question itself does not fit the sub judice
ruling.
The next question is whether it
pertains to the Premier's portfolio areas because ministers can be
asked questions about only their portfolios. Leaders of parties, as the Premier
is, can be asked slightly broader questions. I will take further advice. I will
see whether the Deputy Clerk wants to add anything.
As I was commenting, the matter is
not sub judice as such, so that does not disallow the question. As I previously
commented, ministers can be asked about their portfolio. Standing order 75 in
chapter 12 states that questions to ministers and members may be asked of —
(1) Ministers regarding matters under
the Minister's administrative responsibility;
(2) the Leader of a party in
government regarding that party's policies;
The first footnote states —
Questions to Ministers should relate
to public affairs with which they are connected, to proceedings pending in
Parliament, and to matters of administration for which they are responsible,
but not to matters arising from a Minister's actions as a private
citizen �
The Leader of the House is right:
the Ombudsman is responsible to this Parliament. However, I think it is also
arguable that it relates to public affairs that are connected with the Premier's
role. I reiterate that my philosophy from having dealt with the police
portfolio for many years is that, by and large, people should not prejudge
things. The potential always exists for
legal action of some form to be taken in a court of law at a later stage. Being
mindful of that, I ask the Premier to respond to the question in the way
he sees fit.
Questions without Notice Resumed
AnswerView source ↗
I
thank the member for the question. Obviously, the Ombudsman is an independent
officer of the Parliament. He is not accountable to the government and
the government has no ability to direct the Ombudsman. I have no responsibility
to investigate the actions of public authorities. We are aware of concerns that
have been raised in relation to the Ombudsman and these matters are being
referred to the CCC, and no doubt there will be some clarity in relation to those
matters. As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the
Ombudsman's actions. Indeed, we will see clarity brought forward on
whether it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to seek leave or have authority to
travel or otherwise. We expect all public officials to act with the highest
integrity and in the best interests of Western Australians; that goes for
anyone. We would like everyone who is in the service of the Western Australian
public to behave in that manner.
thank the member for the question. Obviously, the Ombudsman is an independent
officer of the Parliament. He is not accountable to the government and
the government has no ability to direct the Ombudsman. I have no responsibility
to investigate the actions of public authorities. We are aware of concerns that
have been raised in relation to the Ombudsman and these matters are being
referred to the CCC, and no doubt there will be some clarity in relation to those
matters. As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the
Ombudsman's actions. Indeed, we will see clarity brought forward on
whether it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to seek leave or have authority to
travel or otherwise. We expect all public officials to act with the highest
integrity and in the best interests of Western Australians; that goes for
anyone. We would like everyone who is in the service of the Western Australian
public to behave in that manner.
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.