❓ Question regarding the Attorney General's actions in providing documents to a witness and comparing them to those of Moira Rayner. The Attorney General avoids directly answering the question, instead attacking the opposition's handling of the issue.
AnsweredQoN 480Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Given the Attorney General’s admission in June 2002 that he provided the member for Yokine, as a prosecution witness in two appeals, with copies of the Lewandowski affidavit and other documents, and given his statement on 6PR radio on 17 June 2002 that he did this so that the member could prepare himself to tell his version of events and the truth of the matter, why are the actions of the Attorney General any different from those of the discredited Moira Rayner, especially as the Lewandowski affidavit led to the quashing of the convictions of the Mickelberg brothers in July 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
This is a very serious matter. If opposition members have any questions on the detail of what has transpired and the sequence of events, I am more than happy to provide them with everything that is within my knowledge on these matters. When we came into the house this week, opposition members expressed fury and said that it was the end of the world as we know it. The opposition tried to suspend standing orders and then moved a matter of public interest motion on Tuesday. Interestingly, that motion went nowhere. The best that could be done was when the member for Leschenault, who invented a great conspiracy theory, rhetorically asked, “How high up does this go?”, without suggesting that it went anywhere, and, “Who else does this incriminate?”, without suggesting that anyone else was incriminated. The member for Leschenault continued with the full rhetorical spray that we expect of him. Yesterday, the issue was dropped completely; members opposite were not interested in it. It had died, frankly, because members opposite realised that there was nothing in it. What is happening now? The opposition is going fishing today. The member for Hillarys has cast out the suggestion that somehow or other I was aware that Kevin Hammond had written a letter on Friday when I clearly was not. I have already told the Parliament that I was made aware, not in detail but in general terms, on Monday this week when I spoke to Kevin Hammond and he told me that he had written to the parliamentary committee about these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: This is a very serious matter. If opposition members have any questions on the detail of what has transpired and the sequence of events, I am more than happy to provide them with everything that is within my knowledge on these matters. When we came into the house this week, opposition members expressed fury and said that it was the end of the world as we know it. The opposition tried to suspend standing orders and then moved a matter of public interest motion on Tuesday. Interestingly, that motion went nowhere. The best that could be done was when the member for Leschenault, who invented a great conspiracy theory, rhetorically asked, “How high up does this go?”, without suggesting that it went anywhere, and, “Who else does this incriminate?”, without suggesting that anyone else was incriminated. The member for Leschenault continued with the full rhetorical spray that we expect of him. Yesterday, the issue was dropped completely; members opposite were not interested in it. It had died, frankly, because members opposite realised that there was nothing in it. What is happening now? The opposition is going fishing today. The member for Hillarys has cast out the suggestion that somehow or other I was aware that Kevin Hammond had written a letter on Friday when I clearly was not. I have already told the Parliament that I was made aware, not in detail but in general terms, on Monday this week when I spoke to Kevin Hammond and he told me that he had written to the parliamentary committee about these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
This is a very serious matter. If opposition members have any questions on the detail of what has transpired and the sequence of events, I am more than happy to provide them with everything that is within my knowledge on these matters. When we came into the house this week, opposition members expressed fury and said that it was the end of the world as we know it. The opposition tried to suspend standing orders and then moved a matter of public interest motion on Tuesday. Interestingly, that motion went nowhere. The best that could be done was when the member for Leschenault, who invented a great conspiracy theory, rhetorically asked, “How high up does this go?”, without suggesting that it went anywhere, and, “Who else does this incriminate?”, without suggesting that anyone else was incriminated. The member for Leschenault continued with the full rhetorical spray that we expect of him. Yesterday, the issue was dropped completely; members opposite were not interested in it. It had died, frankly, because members opposite realised that there was nothing in it. What is happening now? The opposition is going fishing today. The member for Hillarys has cast out the suggestion that somehow or other I was aware that Kevin Hammond had written a letter on Friday when I clearly was not. I have already told the Parliament that I was made aware, not in detail but in general terms, on Monday this week when I spoke to Kevin Hammond and he told me that he had written to the parliamentary committee about these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: This is a very serious matter. If opposition members have any questions on the detail of what has transpired and the sequence of events, I am more than happy to provide them with everything that is within my knowledge on these matters. When we came into the house this week, opposition members expressed fury and said that it was the end of the world as we know it. The opposition tried to suspend standing orders and then moved a matter of public interest motion on Tuesday. Interestingly, that motion went nowhere. The best that could be done was when the member for Leschenault, who invented a great conspiracy theory, rhetorically asked, “How high up does this go?”, without suggesting that it went anywhere, and, “Who else does this incriminate?”, without suggesting that anyone else was incriminated. The member for Leschenault continued with the full rhetorical spray that we expect of him. Yesterday, the issue was dropped completely; members opposite were not interested in it. It had died, frankly, because members opposite realised that there was nothing in it. What is happening now? The opposition is going fishing today. The member for Hillarys has cast out the suggestion that somehow or other I was aware that Kevin Hammond had written a letter on Friday when I clearly was not. I have already told the Parliament that I was made aware, not in detail but in general terms, on Monday this week when I spoke to Kevin Hammond and he told me that he had written to the parliamentary committee about these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
This is a very serious matter. If opposition members have any questions on the detail of what has transpired and the sequence of events, I am more than happy to provide them with everything that is within my knowledge on these matters. When we came into the house this week, opposition members expressed fury and said that it was the end of the world as we know it. The opposition tried to suspend standing orders and then moved a matter of public interest motion on Tuesday. Interestingly, that motion went nowhere. The best that could be done was when the member for Leschenault, who invented a great conspiracy theory, rhetorically asked, “How high up does this go?”, without suggesting that it went anywhere, and, “Who else does this incriminate?”, without suggesting that anyone else was incriminated. The member for Leschenault continued with the full rhetorical spray that we expect of him. Yesterday, the issue was dropped completely; members opposite were not interested in it. It had died, frankly, because members opposite realised that there was nothing in it. What is happening now? The opposition is going fishing today. The member for Hillarys has cast out the suggestion that somehow or other I was aware that Kevin Hammond had written a letter on Friday when I clearly was not. I have already told the Parliament that I was made aware, not in detail but in general terms, on Monday this week when I spoke to Kevin Hammond and he told me that he had written to the parliamentary committee about these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : That was the first occasion on which I became aware of these matters. At the beginning of the week the opposition decided to throw some dirt. The only problem was that members opposite had picked up dirt from different sandpits and were throwing it indiscriminately and without any sense of what they wanted to achieve. I was not at all surprised that members opposite dropped the issue yesterday. Members opposite should be aware that an inquiry was conducted by a parliamentary officer, Malcolm McCusker, QC, into the misbehaviour of an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission and that it was paramount that confidentiality surrounding that issue be maintained. If members opposite cannot see the distinction between that investigation and an investigation that finished 20 years ago, I suggest that they go back to school.
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.