5915 Tuesday, 3 November 1992 THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Garry Kelly) took the Chair at 3.30 pm, and mead prayers. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION - REPORT ON PORT KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BILL Tabling THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I table the report of the Legislation Committee on the Port Kennedy Development Agreement Bill and draw the attention of the House to the attached schedule. The report was released last Wednesday pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Council on 22 October that in lieu of presenting the report on that day the chairman be authorised to present it to the President on or before 28 October and on receipt of that report the President be authorised to publish it and the report be deemed to be tabled and ordered to be printed. The chairman of the committee handed the report to the Deputy President on Wednesday, 28 October 1992 at 3.37 pm at which time the report was released. [See paper No 480.] MOTION - STANDING ORDERS SUSPENSION Attorney General's Resignation - Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters Report Recommendations HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan - Leader of the Opposition) [3.39 pm]: I move without notice - That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would enable a motion to be moved and debated to its conclusion at today's sitting. The motion I wish to move relates to a number of matters of public importance. If the House grants the suspension of Standing Orders the Legislative Council will be given the opportunity to discuss aspects of the Royal Commission's findings which were tabled in this House approximately two weeks ago. The House must be given the opportunity to raise the matters contained in the motion, not just because the Opposition sees it as an opportunity to debate matters connected with the Royal Commission but because the matters in the proposed motion touch on issues of high public importance. Debate will not only afford the Opposition the opportunity to put its view but will also allow the Leader of the House to respond. The motion calls on the Leader of the House to resign his ministerial portfolios. Members will be aware that as Attorney General he is the first officer of the State and that this is not the type of motion that can be left hanging around on the Notice Paper. It must be debated today. It is a matter of considerable public interest and should be debated with the utmost urgency. For those reasons, and for such other reasons as members think appropriate, I ask them to support the suspension of Standing Orders. HON J.M. BERINSON (North Metropolitan - Leader of the House) [3.48 pm]: I support the motion to suspend Standing Orders. More than that, I am happy to acknowledge that the motion is a welcome change from the quite disgraceful manipulation of Standing Orders in which Hon George Cash has engaged himself on earlier similar occasions. I have in mind in particular his conduct on a motion of censure against me which he moved on 8 May 1990. He started speaking at 9.59 pm and spoke for almost an hour. That brought him right up to our normal adjournment time, and when I moved an extension of time so that I could speak and have my rebuttal reported in the media at the same time as his unfounded allegations, he ensured that the extension of time was rejected. flat was not really clever-, it was merely tricky, in the distinctive way that has been all too typical of Mr Cash's approach on many occasions. Hon George Cash: You have been a very good teacher! Hon J.M. BERINSON: To the extent at least that the Leader of the Opposition in this 5916 [COUNCIL] procedural respect has withstood the temptation to be himself, it is only fair to acknowledge the improvement. If he can only bring himself also to present the facts rather than misrepresent them when we come to the substantive motion, he really wili show himself to be a very changed man, though his speech in that case will also be very short. I support the motion. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. MOTION - ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESIGNATION Royal Commission into CommercialActivities of Government and Other Matters Report Recommendations HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan - Leader of die Opposition) [3.50 pm]: I move - That this House - A. Having considered the report of the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters and mindful that - (i) The Royal Commission was prohibited by the Bill of Rights article 9 from examining the conduct of Ministers in Parliament and accordingly, given that special privilege Parliament has an absolute obligation to make that examination itself; and (ii) the accountability of Ministers is to the Parliament, and in particular to the House of which the Minister is a member, and that the findings of the commission in themselves give rise to questions as to the sufficiency or probity of the actions of Ministers, or taken with matters that occurred in the House give rise to those questions; B. condemns the Leader of the House in his conduct as a Minister, as Attorney General and former Minister for Budget Management in that he has - (1) methodically misled the House as to the extent of his involvement in the acquisition by the State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC) of the Bell Group shares and convertible notes; (2) participated in a course of deception of the public and the undermining of public confidence in appointments to senior Public Service positions in the appointment of Len Brush as Chairman of the State Superannuation Board; (3) was grossly negligent in - (i) introducing and recommending to Cabinet the Bell convertible note purchase without making or causing to be made any inquiry as to the value of the notes; (ii) putting forward the Bell deal knowing that it was concerned with a rescue of Rothwells Limited and having learnt of the substantial deposits that had been made in Rothwells by the State Government Insurance Commission, the State Superannuation Board, the Bell Group and die Bond Corporation; (iii) failing to read the legal advice obtained regarding the SGIC's obligation to comply with the takeovers code with regard to the Bell share acquisition and in having dissuaded other members of Cabinet from doing so, where had he read the opinion he would have ascertained that the legality of the transaction depended upon Crown privilege and that he and the Government had participated in a breach of the spirit of die takeovers code; (iv) failing to ensure that Laurence Robert Connell executed an appropriate enforceable guarantee in accordance with the oral [Tuesday, 3 November 1992]191 5917 undertaking by Mr Connell to put the whole of his assets at the disposal of Rothwells especially in view of the fact that Hon J.M. Berinson with Brian Burke and David Parker were the three Ministers who agreed with Connell the terms of the Rothweils rescue; (v) failing to take an active interest in the legal and financial implications of the Western Australian Government Holdings and Petrochemical Industries Co Ltd transaction and especially those matters raised by the letter of advice to him dated 16 August 1988 from the Solicitor General; (4) participated in the deception of the public regarding the giving of the Government guarantees in connection with the Petrochemical Industries Co Ltd; (5) was deceptive and involved himself in a conflict of interest on the Ministerial Council by failing to give evidence to the National Companies and Securities Commission inquiry into the acquisition of Bell shares as to his involvement in the meeting with Bond Corporation over the acquisition; and that this House concludes that the whole WA Inc saga demonstrated - (i) a total disregard of the law and failure to enforce the law, and a participation in improper practices by Government; and (ii) a massive waste and loss of public funds through deals designed to hide the truth of the Government's involvement in Rothwells and to secure the Australian Labor Party's re-election; and that in his role as Attorney General he must bear direct responsibility for the former, and in his previous capacity as Minister for Budget Management he must accept responsibility for the latter, and has shown himself completely lacking in integrity and competence to act as a Minister of the Crown by elevating the party's advantage over his constitutional obligation to act in the community's interests; C. Requires him to resign forthwith as a Minister of the Crown. The opening paragraph of the motion refers to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The preamble in the motion touches on mailers that could be considered by the Royal Commission and that have been the subject of debate in this House. Members will be aware that sonic time ago the Royal Commissioners made application to both the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council for permission to waive the parliamentary privilege as it applied to article 9 of the Bill of Rights to enable the Royal Commissioners to give consideration to those matters which had been raised in the Parliament. Given the very special privilege that exists with respect to what members of Parliament say in a House of Parliament, the Presiding Officers of both Houses denied the Royal Commission the waiver of that privilege. Members will be aware that only two weeks ago the President of this Legislative Council, after reading various media reports which distorted the situation with respect to article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the special privilege that attaches to what is said in this Parliament, made a statement to this House which clearly outlined the reasons that both Mr President and Mr Speaker had declined to grant the waiver.