❓ Opposition questions the Police Minister regarding the handling of a forged resignation letter and the police investigation. The Minister defends the police's actions, stating fingerprint analysis wasn't an issue.
AnsweredQoN 167Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s claim yesterday that fingerprint samples were not taken from the member for Southern River and her electorate officer because the handling of the forged resignation letter was not an issue, and ask - (1) Is it not the case that the fingerprints found on the forged letter could help to indicate who signed that signature? (2) Is it not the case that if only one set of fingerprints was found on the letter that would suggest that the person who handled the letter was also the person who forged the signature? (3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(1) Is it not the case that the fingerprints found on the forged letter could help to indicate who signed that signature? (2) Is it not the case that if only one set of fingerprints was found on the letter that would suggest that the person who handled the letter was also the person who forged the signature? (3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(2) Is it not the case that if only one set of fingerprints was found on the letter that would suggest that the person who handled the letter was also the person who forged the signature? (3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(1) Is it not the case that the fingerprints found on the forged letter could help to indicate who signed that signature? (2) Is it not the case that if only one set of fingerprints was found on the letter that would suggest that the person who handled the letter was also the person who forged the signature? (3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(2) Is it not the case that if only one set of fingerprints was found on the letter that would suggest that the person who handled the letter was also the person who forged the signature? (3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(3) Does the minister accept that the primary police investigation into this matter was deficient? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
(1)-(3) Fishing again? The police carried out their - Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Ms MacTiernan: And we are going to catch a big one today. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Armadale has to have her little say every day. If I hear her interject once more on matters that have nothing to do with her, I will formally call her to order. Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: The paper has been dusted for fingerprints because that is the way fingerprints are taken, and anything that comes up that is a recognisable print - they get a lot of smears - is then capable of being used for comparison. I do not know if anything was capable of being used for comparison because that is not information the police have supplied me with. They have dusted the paper for fingerprints. They gave me an answer yesterday which I gave to those opposite. The handling of the paper or the letter is not an issue - Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: Do you think it is an issue? What is your view? Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: - because clearly it had been handled by a number of people. Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: How do you know? Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: Because otherwise it would have been an issue. It is logical. Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: This is your supposition? Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr PRINCE: Yes, it is my supposition. They told me it was not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Clearly it has been handled by a number of other people. Clearly it has been perhaps sent through fax machines and things like that. It is not an issue. That is their conclusion. They are the police officers, they are the experts, they are the people who carry out the inquiry, not the member third-hand seven months later trying to score what he thinks is a political point. He is not successful, it is not working and why does he not leave it to the police? Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
Mr Ripper: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
The SPEAKER: Before I give the member a supplementary question, I remind members that under the standing orders we should not be asking questions of opinion; however, I suppose equally ministers should not be venturing an opinion, necessarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may ask a supplementary question.
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.