❓ The WA parliamentary question concerns alleged corrupt activity by Mr. Graham Burkett and the government's response, particularly regarding when the Department of Premier and Cabinet became aware of the investigation and why Mr. Burkett wasn't immediately stood down. The Acting Premier's answer defends the government's actions and emphasizes the strength and independence of the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).
AnsweredQoN 607Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Acting Premier to the Corruption and Crime Commission investigation into alleged corrupt activity by Mr Graham Burkett, the former chief of staff of the Minister for Racing and Gaming. (1) Will the Acting Premier advise when the Department of the Premier and Cabinet first became aware of the investigation of Mr Burkett? (2) Does the Acting Premier consider it appropriate for such a senior ministerial adviser to continue to work for a week after raids were conducted on the office of the Minister for Racing and Gaming as part of the investigation? (3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(1) Will the Acting Premier advise when the Department of the Premier and Cabinet first became aware of the investigation of Mr Burkett? (2) Does the Acting Premier consider it appropriate for such a senior ministerial adviser to continue to work for a week after raids were conducted on the office of the Minister for Racing and Gaming as part of the investigation? (3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(2) Does the Acting Premier consider it appropriate for such a senior ministerial adviser to continue to work for a week after raids were conducted on the office of the Minister for Racing and Gaming as part of the investigation? (3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
“Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
. . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
[See paper No 2894.]
(1) Will the Acting Premier advise when the Department of the Premier and Cabinet first became aware of the investigation of Mr Burkett? (2) Does the Acting Premier consider it appropriate for such a senior ministerial adviser to continue to work for a week after raids were conducted on the office of the Minister for Racing and Gaming as part of the investigation? (3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(2) Does the Acting Premier consider it appropriate for such a senior ministerial adviser to continue to work for a week after raids were conducted on the office of the Minister for Racing and Gaming as part of the investigation? (3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(3) Why was Mr Burkett not stood down as soon as the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became aware that he was under investigation? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
(1)-(3) Allegations of corruption and improper behaviour are, of course, very serious issues. The Government strongly opposes any suggestion of corruption or improper behaviour. We have thoroughly resourced the Corruption and Crime Commission, which I will come to in a moment. The CCC has very strong powers. All public officers, regardless of their position - either low or high - should have reason to fear the CCC if they are engaged in any form of corruption or improper conduct. I will read from and table a statement released by the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia titled “clarification”, which I believe has been publicly released. The clarification states - “The sequence of events on 23 September was that the CCC executed a search warrant on the office of the Minister for Housing and Works unannounced and without warning. “Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.” With the support of this Parliament, this Government has established the powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Its budget is $20 million per annum, which is approximately double the budget given to its predecessor. It also has a staff complement of 153. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
“Commission investigators, having entered the Ministerial office, then telephoned the Minister, who was not in his office at the time, to inform him that they were executing a search warrant in relation to allegations affecting Mr Burkett and that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“The investigators then told me that they had executed the warrant in Mr Burkett’s presence and that they had informed the Minister. “I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“I then informed the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Mal Wauchope, that the CCC had executed the warrant on the office of the Minister, as he was Mr Burkett’s employer. “Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“Mr Wauchope was told that the purpose of the warrant was to collect evidence relating to unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Burkett and that the CCC had informed the Minister that it was executing the warrant. “In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“In the interests of natural justice on such a high profile matter, Mr Wauchope was also told that the Minister wasn’t implicated in the matters under investigation. “Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“Mr Wauchope was not provided with any details of the search warrant or the objectives of the investigation. . . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
. . . “Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“Later that day, Mr Wauchope contacted the Commission to seek advice on what action the Department of Premier and Cabinet could take in relation to Mr Burkett’s employment. “I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“I advised him that as his employer, it appeared appropriate for Mr Wauchope to interview Mr Burkett and that this was unlikely to interfere with the Commission’s investigation. “I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
“I reiterated that the purpose of executing a search warrant at the Minister’s office was to gather information relating to unsubstantiated investigations.”
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is the body that is charged by this Government and this Parliament with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corrupt or improper behaviour. This Government established that body because of our concern to make sure that the public sector is, and is seen to be, absolutely clean. Its establishment arose out of the royal commission, which was opposed by members opposite. We would not have the CCC with greater power than, and double the budget of, its predecessor body if it were not for the decision of this Government, unsupported by the Opposition, to commission the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers and to implement the royal commission’s recommendation for the establishment of this body. My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
My view is that when a body has such power, resources and responsibility, it must be left to go about its task unmolested. If opposition members have any evidence of improper behaviour or any further material relating to this matter, or if they think the matter has in any way been mishandled, they should go straight to the CCC with that information. Do not bring it here. Take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission because it has the powers to investigate the matter. It has been given the powers by the Parliament and the resources by this Government to do this work. It should be allowed to get on with it without being interfered with or harassed or having its activities politicised by the Opposition. Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Opposition members have asked me a number of questions by way of interjection. I recommend, if they have not done so already, that they read the clarification provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission when I table the document. They will find that some of the questions they have been asking are answered in that statement. In the meantime, I say the following to opposition members: if they have material, or if they have a concern even with no evidence, regarding any corrupt or improper behaviour, or if they do not think the matter was handled properly by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they should take that concern to the CCC. That is what it is there for - make use of it. However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
However, we know the Opposition has a different agenda. The Leader of the Opposition at one stage received evidence of a potentially improper, or maybe even corrupt, payment by Western Power to a union. What did he do with that information? Did he take it to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as would be expected of any reasonable and responsible member of Parliament? No, he took it to The West Australian newspaper. He potentially thwarted the progress of that investigation by tipping off the media ahead of tipping off the body with the power, resources and responsibility to investigate corrupt and improper behaviour. I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
I repeat to opposition members that the correct and responsible course of action that demonstrates integrity is to take any issue, concern or evidence to the Corruption and Crime Commission to have it investigated. In the meantime, do not take action that potentially threatens the successful outcome of the investigation. The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
The SPEAKER: I think the Deputy Premier indicated he was tabling a document. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes. [See paper No 2894.]
[See paper No 2894.]
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.