❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister's refusal to refer allegations of ALP vote rigging to authorities. The Minister defends her position by stating that the allegations originated from the opposition and that Senator Bishop, a lawyer, did not make any specific criminal allegations in his correspondence.
AnsweredQoN 151Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I remind the minister of her refusal to refer allegations of criminal behaviour in the Australian Labor Party vote rigging scandal to the appropriate authorities for investigation, and her excuse in this place on 1 April in which she stated that - They are allegations. I do not believe those allegations to be true . . . (1) Did the minister base this assessment on legal advice from government or other sources; and, if so, who gave that legal advice? (2) If not on proper legal advice, on what did the minister base her assumption that the allegations of vote rigging and potentially criminal activity within the ALP are untrue? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
(2) If not on proper legal advice, on what did the minister base her assumption that the allegations of vote rigging and potentially criminal activity within the ALP are untrue? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
(1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
(2) If not on proper legal advice, on what did the minister base her assumption that the allegations of vote rigging and potentially criminal activity within the ALP are untrue? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
(1)-(2) The allegations have been made by members opposite. Senator Bishop put in correspondence to the state secretary of the ALP. He did not make specific or general allegations of any criminal misconduct. Clearly, the Opposition has got this wrong. Members opposite are the ones who have been making the allegations. The senator, as I understand it, referred issues to the state secretary for him to address in an appropriate way and to ensure that those issues were investigated - that is how he addressed his complaint. As I pointed out last week, Senator Bishop is a former union secretary and a lawyer and senator. If he believed that these issues were criminal in nature or if he had an allegation to make, he knows where to take those allegations. However, the correspondence that he had with the state secretary made no allegations of a criminal nature.
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.