❓ Premier Court responds to a question about the Labor Party's plan to allocate $20 million to a royal commission potentially undermining the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). He defends the ACC and accuses the Labor Party of undermining it and being soft on corruption.
AnsweredQoN 231Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the Premier aware that the Labor Party wants to effectively spend a minimum of $20m to undermine the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission? Mr COURT
AnswerView source ↗
Yes, I am. The Labor Party's policy on this matter is to spend a minimum of $20m on a royal commission. I will talk about that in detail shortly. When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT replied: Yes, I am. The Labor Party's policy on this matter is to spend a minimum of $20m on a royal commission. I will talk about that in detail shortly. When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Yes, I am. The Labor Party's policy on this matter is to spend a minimum of $20m on a royal commission. I will talk about that in detail shortly. When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT replied: Yes, I am. The Labor Party's policy on this matter is to spend a minimum of $20m on a royal commission. I will talk about that in detail shortly. When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Yes, I am. The Labor Party's policy on this matter is to spend a minimum of $20m on a royal commission. I will talk about that in detail shortly. When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
When government members asked questions yesterday about the Labor Party's policy, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to accuse the Government of having stolen, or whatever, documents. The Minister for Police said yesterday that the Government received this information from an impeccable source - namely, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite faxed that material. It has come to us, and I can only assume that they want us to comment on their policy. I will comment on it today. Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Was is not interesting how cute the Leader of the Opposition got yesterday when talking about leaked documents? The member for Armadale is not able to give a speech in this place without some leaked documents to provide her background! Even in question time today the shadow Minister for Health said that if we do not make public information which is currently a matter of investigation, the Opposition will make it public. Members opposite are prepared to make that information public even if it sabotages investigations and is defamatory. Was it not cute when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday became indignant about this leaked information? I remember the member for Bunbury suffering some embarrassment after he dropped a document in the corridor. The member for Nollamara could not act quickly enough to move a matter of privilege against the member for something he picked up off the floor. I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
I appreciate getting the information. Why would members opposite be afraid about people knowing about their law and order policy? I do not know. They obviously want comment, so I will give them a bit. The Labor Party will hold a royal commission into the police. The policy then states that it will look into the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It states that the Labor Party will fund the royal commission - that is, spend a minimum of $20m - by winding back the operations of the ACC. Therefore, the ACC, which is an independent body set up by Parliament with the support of members opposite, and with a joint parliamentary committee overseeing its operation - Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr Cowan: And which has the powers of a royal commission. Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: Yes. Members opposite will wind back its operation. They will go soft on corruption and wind back the operations of the ACC while the royal commission is under way. We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
We have already had a royal commission into corruption and the like. One of its recommendations was the establishment of the office of the commissioner for the investigation of corrupt and improper conduct. When the coalition was in opposition, it introduced a Bill to establish the Official Corruption Commission. It then established the Anti-Corruption Commission, giving it more powers and resources. We spent $34m on the first royal commission. Not only do members opposite want to establish another royal commission, but also they have pre-empted its findings. The executive summary states - Labor recognises that the Royal Commission may well recommend that the ACC be replaced with a new special-purpose agency better focused and able to combat police corruption. Mr McGinty: Do you have full confidence in it? Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: The ACC was established by this Parliament with Labor Party support. It is powerful and independent, and it is overseen by a joint standing committee of this Parliament. Do I have confidence in it? Yes, I do. I am not fully aware of all its workings, but the constant undermining by members opposite - Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop: That is rubbish. Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: Why have a royal commission to investigate the operations of the ACC? Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop: You are soft on corruption. Why are you afraid of a royal commission into the police? Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr COURT: It is no secret that the Labor candidate for the seat of Innaloo wants to get rid of the ACC. He has written the blueprint for a royal commission that would effectively undermine its operations. Members opposite want to nobble the ACC. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s providing more details. Members opposite want the commission to investigate the Argyle Diamonds affair. That happened while the Labor Party was in government, and it did nothing about it. Extensive investigations have been carried out, but members opposite want to spend a minimum of $20m going over those issues. Why would they want to undermine confidence in the Police Service and the operations of the ACC by removing its funding? Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop: You and your deputy have said that you have used a stolen document. Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Mr MacLean: It was not stolen; you faxed it to us. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
Dr Gallop interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER: I formally call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
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.