❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding a report into alleged police corruption. The questioner seeks legal justification for the report's ownership and criticizes the Minister's change in stance on tabling the report.
AnsweredQoN 666Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to my question without notice on 5 March 2003, I ask - (1) As the report in question was initiated by the Western Australian Commissioner of Police for the purpose of investigating alleged corruption and impropriety in the Western Australia Police Service, will the minister provide the legal authority that indicates that the report contained in the findings of such an investigation belongs to the Federal Police, as stated by the minister in her reply? (2) In the interests of an open and accountable Police Service, why did the minister not table the report on assuming her duties as Minister for Police and Emergency Services considering that she called for its tabling when in Opposition; and why is it not appropriate to table the document so that we can all see what conclusions the Australian Federal Police came to? (3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(1) As the report in question was initiated by the Western Australian Commissioner of Police for the purpose of investigating alleged corruption and impropriety in the Western Australia Police Service, will the minister provide the legal authority that indicates that the report contained in the findings of such an investigation belongs to the Federal Police, as stated by the minister in her reply? (2) In the interests of an open and accountable Police Service, why did the minister not table the report on assuming her duties as Minister for Police and Emergency Services considering that she called for its tabling when in Opposition; and why is it not appropriate to table the document so that we can all see what conclusions the Australian Federal Police came to? (3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(2) In the interests of an open and accountable Police Service, why did the minister not table the report on assuming her duties as Minister for Police and Emergency Services considering that she called for its tabling when in Opposition; and why is it not appropriate to table the document so that we can all see what conclusions the Australian Federal Police came to? (3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(1) As the report in question was initiated by the Western Australian Commissioner of Police for the purpose of investigating alleged corruption and impropriety in the Western Australia Police Service, will the minister provide the legal authority that indicates that the report contained in the findings of such an investigation belongs to the Federal Police, as stated by the minister in her reply? (2) In the interests of an open and accountable Police Service, why did the minister not table the report on assuming her duties as Minister for Police and Emergency Services considering that she called for its tabling when in Opposition; and why is it not appropriate to table the document so that we can all see what conclusions the Australian Federal Police came to? (3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(2) In the interests of an open and accountable Police Service, why did the minister not table the report on assuming her duties as Minister for Police and Emergency Services considering that she called for its tabling when in Opposition; and why is it not appropriate to table the document so that we can all see what conclusions the Australian Federal Police came to? (3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(3) In respect of the first part of the minister’s reply, I understand that the officer in charge of Operation Tartan, Superintendent Flegg of the Australian Federal Police, advised the complainant, ex-Detective Sergeant Frank Scott, that former Deputy Commissioner Ayton and other senior police officers who were subject to Mr Scott’s allegations, refused to cooperate or be interviewed by officers attached to Operation Tartan. How can the minister advise me that questions 1 to 25, 28 to 42 and 44 require no further action as these matters clearly have not been resolved? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provides the following response - (1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this time.
(1)-(3) These questions contain an incorrect assertion. I did not call for the tabling of the report. When in opposition, I asked the then Minister for Police whether he would table the report and, if not, why not. Inherent in that question is a consideration whether there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be tabled. Given the continuing police royal commission, the Western Australia Police Service advises that the public interest is better served by the report not being tabled at this 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.