P3646f-3656A Mr Zak Kirkup; Mr David Templeman; Mr Shane Love; Mrs Liza Harvey; Mr John Quigley; Mr Mark Mcgowan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 16 June 2020] p3646f-3656a Mr Zak Kirkup; Mr David Templeman; Mr Shane Love; Mrs Liza Harvey; Mr John Quigley; Mr Mark McGowan ATTORNEY GENERAL — REFERRAL TO PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Standing Orders Suspension — Motion MR Z.R.F. KIRKUP (Dawesville) [3.19 pm] — without notice: I move — That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the following motion to be moved forthwith — That this house requests the Procedure and Privileges Committee to inquire into and report to the house at the earliest opportunity — (a) whether the Attorney General, during his second reading reply speech on the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Bill on 28 May 2020, made false and misleading statements to the Legislative Assembly relating to a laptop and other matters which are part of a Corruption and Crime Commission investigation; (b) whether the Attorney General revealed a covert Western Australia Police Force investigation in the course of his speech; and (c) whether such statements and disclosures amount to a breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament; and, if so, what action should be taken. I understand we have 30 minutes a side to prosecute this motion. I appreciate that, as I understand it, the Leader of the House has agreed to that on behalf of the government — The SPEAKER: Do not prejudge! Mr Z.R.F. KIRKUP: I will allow for him to amend the motion accordingly. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Standing Orders Suspension — Amendment to Motion MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah — Leader of the House) [3.19 pm]: I have changed my mind after that motion! I move — To insert after “forthwith” — , subject to the debate being limited to 30 minutes for government members and 30 minutes for non-government members The SPEAKER: That was already in it, was it not? Amendment put and passed. Standing Orders Suspension — Motion, as Amended The SPEAKER: As this is a motion without notice to suspend standing orders, it will need the support of an absolute majority for it to proceed. If I hear a dissentient voice, I will be required to divide the Assembly. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. Motion MR Z.R.F. KIRKUP (Dawesville) [3.20 pm]: I move the motion. This is now the second time that the Liberal Party has moved to refer a member of the Labor Party to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The first time, of course, being the member for Kalamunda and his disclosure of confidential information relating to the evidence and deliberations of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. Of course, that failed because the government used its numbers to protect the member for Kalamunda from further investigation, although I am sure he would have welcomed — Ms S. Winton interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Wanneroo, if you did not keep interjecting, you would not have missed your question before. I call you to order for the second time. Mr Z.R.F. KIRKUP: Although I am sure the member for Kalamunda would have welcomed the opportunity to explain himself, it is clear that the government judged that his actions warranted further protection from investigation. We now find that history is somewhat repeating itself, but this time it is not just the Liberal Party that wants the actions of a minister investigated, but, indeed, the President of the Legislative Council has concluded that our state’s Attorney General has misled and acted in a deceptive manner. In a speech made by the Attorney General in this place on 28 May 2020, we heard some explosive claims. Members of this place have become used to forthright [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 16 June 2020] p3646f-3656a Mr Zak Kirkup; Mr David Templeman; Mr Shane Love; Mrs Liza Harvey; Mr John Quigley; Mr Mark McGowan contributions from the Attorney General; however, as part of his contributions to the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Bill 2020 on 28 May, the Attorney General made a number of statements that took us all by surprise and were obviously reported widely in the media. I am quoting from a paragraph from the Attorney General on that Thursday when he said — A warrant was issued and a laptop was taken, and that led to a criminal investigation. I am not saying that a crime was committed, because it is sometimes very hard to tell the age of Asian girls—very hard—but there had to be an investigation about what was on the computer and whether it involved the sexual exploitation of minors overseas. That is still a current, ongoing inquiry, and a computer is locked away in Parliament somewhere with that evidence. That has not yet been examined in detail. There is no doubt that the claims made by the Attorney General were explosive and shocked a number of us here. Of course, the reference that none of us could get past at the time was the reference to any possible sexual exploitation of a minor—that is something that I had never heard of in this place and it was profound, to say the least, that the Attorney General would state such as part of his contribution in the second reading of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Amendment Bill 2020. But it was the Attorney General’s reference to a police investigation in the treatment of the laptop of a former member of the Legislative Council that deserves further scrutiny. It was those comments that have been subject since to an extraordinary and unprecedented statement by the President of the Legislative Council, Hon Kate Doust. So that the Assembly has all the facts, I will read in the statement from the President in full, which was delivered on Wednesday, 10 June in the other place. The President, at 1.02 pm, issued the following statement — As President and Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I am responding to false and misleading information provided to the Parliament by the Attorney General on 28 May 2020 and reported in The West Australian and in several online media sources. The Attorney General made certain false and misleading claims in the Legislative Assembly relating to a laptop and other matters, and in the course of doing so, revealed a covert Western Australia Police Force investigation. The laptop referred to by the Attorney General contains emails and diary entries from Mr Edman’s parliamentary email account and other information subject to parliamentary privilege. The Corruption and Crime Commission obtained the laptop from Mr Edman by search warrant on 14 August 2019. Mr Edman made a claim of privilege to the CCC over that laptop and its contents. On 5 September 2019, this house ordered the CCC to produce the laptop to the Clerk. The President continued — In revealing a covert criminal investigation by the Western Australia Police Force, the Attorney General claimed that the laptop has not yet been examined in detail. The facts are that WA police have extensively examined the laptop as part of its investigation. This occurred with the full cooperation and assistance of the procedure and privileges committee and following the negotiation of memoranda of understanding between the WA police and the PPC. WA police commenced its review of the laptop and one backup hard drive on 12 October 2019 and has had access to other relevant devices on the parliamentary precinct since 21 November 2019 with the full cooperation of the PPC. These facts were the subject of a media release from me in my capacity as chair of the PPC on 22 December 2019, distributed to all members of the Legislative Council on that day and reported in The West Australian on 2 January 2020. Great care was taken to ensure that the nature of the police investigation remained confidential. For the information of members, I table, firstly, a copy of my media release dated 22 December 2019 and related newspapers reports and, secondly, a copy of the newspaper report of the Attorney General’s claims in The West Australian dated 29 May 2020. For an accurate account of the facts relating to the PPC’s attempts to negotiate a procedure with the CCC for access to the data of three former members and their staff, I refer the Attorney General to the fifty-fifth report of the PPC, “A Refusal to Comply with a Summons to Produce Documents”, tabled on 14 August 2019, tabled paper 2929. The PPC will report on these and related matters in due course. Clearly, after reading the statement that we heard from the Attorney General on 28 May and now reading the statement made by the President on 10 June, there are some inconsistencies and both appear to be at odds with one another. We have two varying perspectives—one in which the Attorney General has provided significant detail to this place and the other in which the President of the Legislative Council claims that the Attorney General’s contribution was inconsistent with fact, and, more than that, the President considered the Attorney General’s contribution false and misleading. The President herself, of course, makes those claims given that she is fully aware of the process that she has participated in as Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the other place, and, as such, the President considers that the Attorney General’s contribution—noting her role in that committee process—has been considered false and misleading. The informed statement by the presiding [2] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 16 June 2020] p3646f-3656a Mr Zak Kirkup; Mr David Templeman; Mr Shane Love; Mrs Liza Harvey; Mr John Quigley; Mr Mark McGowan officer of the fortieth Parliament cannot go without further investigation, and that is what we are here today asking the government to support, as part of our referral motion, and to ensure that the Attorney General’s comments on 28 May can be investigated thoroughly and a report produced back to this house.