❓ Opposition questions the Minister for Emergency Services about FESA hiring lawyers to challenge a report by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. The Minister defends FESA's right to seek legal advice and denies direct involvement.
AnsweredQoN 879Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARDS COMMISSIONER — COMMENTS BY MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES
My question also relates to a question of horse manure! I refer to the minister’s comments on radio 6PR yesterday morning when he said that he could not, by law, get involved in the conduct of his agency when it hired lawyers to harass, intimidate and threaten the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. (1) When was the minister made aware that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority had hired lawyers in response to an investigation being conducted by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner? (2) What action did the minister take when he became aware of his agency’s ploy to doctor the commissioner’s report? (3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
My question also relates to a question of horse manure! I refer to the minister’s comments on radio 6PR yesterday morning when he said that he could not, by law, get involved in the conduct of his agency when it hired lawyers to harass, intimidate and threaten the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. (1) When was the minister made aware that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority had hired lawyers in response to an investigation being conducted by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner? (2) What action did the minister take when he became aware of his agency’s ploy to doctor the commissioner’s report? (3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(1) When was the minister made aware that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority had hired lawyers in response to an investigation being conducted by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner? (2) What action did the minister take when he became aware of his agency’s ploy to doctor the commissioner’s report? (3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(2) What action did the minister take when he became aware of his agency’s ploy to doctor the commissioner’s report? (3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(1) When was the minister made aware that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority had hired lawyers in response to an investigation being conducted by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner? (2) What action did the minister take when he became aware of his agency’s ploy to doctor the commissioner’s report? (3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(2) What action did the minister take when he became aware of his agency’s ploy to doctor the commissioner’s report? (3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(3) Can the minister explain which laws prohibit him as the responsible minister from getting involved in his agency using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers for such an illegitimate purpose? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
(1)-(3) What an extremely antagonistic question the Leader of the Opposition has put today. Let me go through the chronology of events. The Leader of the Opposition and I cannot get involved in the appointment or the sacking of any public servant. That is against the law. Does the member agree with that? Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You can get involved in the hiring of lawyers. You should get involved in the hiring of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : We will come to that. Let’s look at the crux of the matter—this is to do with the appointment of David Caporn by FESA. The first time I became aware of his appointment was after the event. The chief executive officer did not come to me and say, “Minister, by the way, I’m going to appoint David Caporn. I have advertised the job, I have looked at different applicants, these people have applied and, under the criteria, he was the best person qualified for the job”; most experienced and so on. The CEO did not come to me and say that. I had no idea about that position being taken up until after the event. Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Although I might have my own private views as to whether it was a good decision or not by the FESA panel to find that the criteria and assessment for his appointment was met, would it have been appropriate for me to endorse that or to reject that in some way? That is not appropriate. They did not come to me. The situation happened. Once somebody has been appointed in the public service, that is it. It is not for me to turn around to try to sack that person. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not only inappropriate, it is against the law. I am giving the chronology of events because it leads back to that. Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr M. McGowan : Answer the question! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : He has asked the question. You just be quiet! In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
In relation to when did I become aware that FESA was thinking of taking legal advice: I think it was around the time a draft report was being completed by Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. I do not believe that I actually saw the draft report; not in the early stages. I was aware of it at the final stage. I was made aware by FESA that in its view there were inaccuracies and some defamatory comments or remarks within — Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister allowed them to hire external lawyers to fight this case. Is that what I am hearing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is hearing. I am telling him what happened. He asked me what happened; when I became aware. I was aware FESA had engaged lawyers because it believed it had to try to do something to maintain the good name of FESA. FESA believed it was being defamed and that there were inaccuracies in that report. Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So the minister did say, “No; you can’t do this”? Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr M. McGowan : Or should not do it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Once again, if an authority believes that something is happening that is not fair and equitable, and there are inaccuracies, it has a duty to make sure that an accurate report is tabled in Parliament. An authority has a duty to do that. We cannot have an agency that sits by and lets a report go in that is, in its view, not accurate. FESA took legal advice. It is its right to do that. It is not for me as minister to say “yes, you can” or “no, you can’t”. Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr M. McGowan : Not legal advice—they engaged lawyers! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Okay, they engaged lawyers to give them legal advice as to what could happen, I presume. I was not a party to all of this; nor should I have been as the minister. This is something that is happening under the Public Sector Management Act. Ruth Shean was carrying out her inquiry. Of course, at the end of the day, the final report said that the appointment was valid. As I understand it, yes, some of the terminology and detail within that report was amended. Ruth Shean did not have to amend the report. She could have stuck to her guns and said, “No, this is my report. I am going to table it in Parliament.” She obviously had conversations or correspondence with FESA—I presume with Malcolm Wauchope, I do not know but I presume so—and also, I imagine, somebody from the lawyers who reviewed the draft report for FESA. Like anywhere, people want natural justice. If they believe they have been defamed and there are inaccuracies, they would take that action. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. FESA took on lawyers. They did not come to me and say, “Minister, can we please take on lawyers? Can we please get some legal advice because we think this, that and the other?” FESA did not do that. I do not believe it necessarily had to. I believe that probably it had every right to ensure the scrutiny and accuracy of that report. As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
As I said, if Ruth Shean did not think that there was anything wrong in that report, she could have tabled it as it was. She had the authority to do that. Ruth Shean decided to amend it, as I understand. She decided to amend it and then tabled a final report. First of all, it was decided that the appointment was valid; then I believe it went to Malcolm Wauchope, who reviewed that situation again. As I understand it, he came to the same conclusion—that the appointment was valid. I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
I understand the personalities involved. Perhaps I might have had a different view from FESA at the time; perhaps I would. But at the end of the day I cannot legally get involved in trying to either get somebody a job in the public service — Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr P.B. Watson : Is this a bedtime story? The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It is about the appointment of lawyers. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am trying to answer the questions. Leader of the Opposition, I will always answer questions honestly; I really will. When did I become aware? It would have been after the event, rather than before. At the end of the day, I believe they had a right to get some legal advice. I would imagine that every government agency gets legal advice at different times. They must do. It is a question of opinion whether or not it was appropriate to get legal advice. I think it probably was, as I understand the initial draft report — Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr P.B. Watson : Fall on your sword! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and the member for Albany should not make light of it. I do not, and neither does the Leader of the Opposition even though he put a lot of argument in his question. When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
When did I become aware? It was after the event—after they had instructed lawyers, obviously, to give them opinion on whether the report was accurate and whether there were defamatory comments in there. They obviously thought there were, which was part of the reason they sought legal advice. In a way, I can see to some extent why FESA wanted to do that. They wanted to make sure that whatever was tabled in this Parliament was an accurate reflection of the process — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
The SPEAKER : Members, we have been going for 10 minutes on this question. Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Going in a continuous circle. The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
The SPEAKER : Members! Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Minister, we have been going for 10 minutes on this and I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a supplementary question. I do not want question time to take half an hour to get to five or six questions. I ask the minister to rapidly conclude his remarks. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a supplementary. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Mr Speaker, I take your comments very seriously. Obviously, I always do. I will now take my seat and wait for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary.
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.