❓ A WA parliament member questions the Attorney General's response to a notice alleging subversion of the constitution, arguing the AG should defend the state and parliament. The AG responded that it is not their function to provide legal advice or engage in debates with the individual about their constitutional views.
AnsweredQoN 1606Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The Attorney General was served a notice on 14 November 2003 alleging offences including but not limited to subversion of the Constitution of Western Australia and of the Commonwealth. The notice was served on him in his capacity as Attorney General of Western Australia. (1) By what authority did the Attorney General sidestep the duties and obligations of his office as a member of Parliament to defend the State and the Parliament from these allegations by stating in reply to the applicant that his intention was to no longer communicate on these matters to defend the notice? (2) As the Attorney General is the principal law officer of the Parliament, was it his intention to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament, as these matters may affect the duties and obligations of all members? (3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(1) By what authority did the Attorney General sidestep the duties and obligations of his office as a member of Parliament to defend the State and the Parliament from these allegations by stating in reply to the applicant that his intention was to no longer communicate on these matters to defend the notice? (2) As the Attorney General is the principal law officer of the Parliament, was it his intention to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament, as these matters may affect the duties and obligations of all members? (3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(2) As the Attorney General is the principal law officer of the Parliament, was it his intention to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament, as these matters may affect the duties and obligations of all members? (3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(1) By what authority did the Attorney General sidestep the duties and obligations of his office as a member of Parliament to defend the State and the Parliament from these allegations by stating in reply to the applicant that his intention was to no longer communicate on these matters to defend the notice? (2) As the Attorney General is the principal law officer of the Parliament, was it his intention to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament, as these matters may affect the duties and obligations of all members? (3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(2) As the Attorney General is the principal law officer of the Parliament, was it his intention to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament, as these matters may affect the duties and obligations of all members? (3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(3) Does the Attorney General realise that failure to defend shall default his office in regard to the allegations stated? (4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(4) If yes, what is the justification for the intended failure to respond? (5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(5) If no, how is the Attorney General qualified to administer the office of the Attorney General, as a failure to respond may invalidate this here assembled Parliament? (6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(6) Given the seriousness of these matters, will the Attorney General now reconsider his position, defend the notice and provide disclosure to both Houses? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
(1)-(6) On 14 November 2003 the Attorney General received a notice of demand from Mr Neil Piccinin. That notice was not issued by or out of any court of Western Australia. On 19 November 2003 the Attorney General replied by letter to Mr Piccinin noting that the matters raised by Mr Piccinin involved proceedings in which Mr Piccinin had been involved in the Federal Court and which involved the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Court of Petty Sessions. The letter indicated that Mr Piccinin might wish to raise his constitutional views and arguments in any appeals on those decisions. It is not a function of the Attorney General to provide legal advice or engage in debates with Mr Piccinin about Mr Piccinin’s views concerning constitutional law issues.
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.