❓ Question regarding extending the Corruption and Crime Commission's (CCC) powers to report on private citizens, given concerns about its performance in reporting on public officers. The Attorney General defends the extension, citing the need to address corruption involving non-public officials like Brian Burke.
AnsweredQoN 183Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION — REPORTING ON PRIVATE CITIZENS
I refer to the Attorney General’s statement that the government supports, in principle, all but four of the recommendations contained in the Archer review of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, particularly the recommendation that the act be amended to make it clear that the Corruption and Crime Commission may report on the conduct of non-public officers in discharging its misconduct provision. Given that the findings in the past three reports of the CCC on public officers, being those pertaining to Mr Allen, Mr Frewer and now the member for Ballajura, have been disputed by the parliamentary inspector to the CCC, and given that there has not yet been sufficient time to assess the efficacy of CCC investigations in terms of whether they can sustain successful prosecutions of public officers, I ask — (1) At a time when the parliamentary inspector appears to take a view that the CCC is experiencing real problems in its core function of reporting on public officers, is it wise to proceed incautiously and authorise it to be able to report on private citizens? (2) Will the Attorney General agree to delay any extension of the CCC’s powers to report on private citizens until the present dispute between the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector has been satisfactorily resolved and until the CCC has had adequate time to prove itself in its core function of reporting on the misconduct of public officers? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to the Attorney General’s statement that the government supports, in principle, all but four of the recommendations contained in the Archer review of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, particularly the recommendation that the act be amended to make it clear that the Corruption and Crime Commission may report on the conduct of non-public officers in discharging its misconduct provision. Given that the findings in the past three reports of the CCC on public officers, being those pertaining to Mr Allen, Mr Frewer and now the member for Ballajura, have been disputed by the parliamentary inspector to the CCC, and given that there has not yet been sufficient time to assess the efficacy of CCC investigations in terms of whether they can sustain successful prosecutions of public officers, I ask — (1) At a time when the parliamentary inspector appears to take a view that the CCC is experiencing real problems in its core function of reporting on public officers, is it wise to proceed incautiously and authorise it to be able to report on private citizens? (2) Will the Attorney General agree to delay any extension of the CCC’s powers to report on private citizens until the present dispute between the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector has been satisfactorily resolved and until the CCC has had adequate time to prove itself in its core function of reporting on the misconduct of public officers? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
(1) At a time when the parliamentary inspector appears to take a view that the CCC is experiencing real problems in its core function of reporting on public officers, is it wise to proceed incautiously and authorise it to be able to report on private citizens? (2) Will the Attorney General agree to delay any extension of the CCC’s powers to report on private citizens until the present dispute between the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector has been satisfactorily resolved and until the CCC has had adequate time to prove itself in its core function of reporting on the misconduct of public officers? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
(2) Will the Attorney General agree to delay any extension of the CCC’s powers to report on private citizens until the present dispute between the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector has been satisfactorily resolved and until the CCC has had adequate time to prove itself in its core function of reporting on the misconduct of public officers? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
(1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
(1) At a time when the parliamentary inspector appears to take a view that the CCC is experiencing real problems in its core function of reporting on public officers, is it wise to proceed incautiously and authorise it to be able to report on private citizens? (2) Will the Attorney General agree to delay any extension of the CCC’s powers to report on private citizens until the present dispute between the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector has been satisfactorily resolved and until the CCC has had adequate time to prove itself in its core function of reporting on the misconduct of public officers? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
(2) Will the Attorney General agree to delay any extension of the CCC’s powers to report on private citizens until the present dispute between the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector has been satisfactorily resolved and until the CCC has had adequate time to prove itself in its core function of reporting on the misconduct of public officers? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
(1)-(2) The answer to the second question is no. In respect of the first question, members will recall that there was some argument about whether the CCC had the power to make public its opinions on the behaviour of Brian Burke. In my view the activities of Brian Burke were such that they had a corrupting effect on the way in which public officers did their duty and that the CCC should have the power to report its opinions on the behaviour of people like Brian Burke because — Mr C.C. Porter : Of any private citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should listen to my answer. In my view that was essential to the way in which public officers perform their function. The ability to report opinions on the conduct of non-public officers would arise in a public sector corruption context when their conduct had a corrosive effect on the behaviour of the public officers. Gail Archer did a 12-month review of the CCC act and that was her recommendation. I fully support it. It is sound policy, rather than getting into arguments about whether the behaviour of people like Brian Burke should be able to be reported. It is not in the public interest to understand all the background that goes to make up misconduct or corruption by public officers. I support the view that was adopted by Gail Archer. The government supports the view that, in the context of public sector corruption, the CCC should be able to report opinions on people who are not technically public officers, and Brian Burke is exactly that sort of person. As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
As I said, the answer to the second question, in which the member asked whether we could incautiously rush into bringing in legislation, is of course no. We are always very cautious in dealing with these matters.
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.