Networked Knowledge - Media Report

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]

Legislative Council Friday 27 November 1998

The President (Hon. J.C. Irwin) took the Chair at 11am and read prayers.

Question Time Motorola

The Hon CAROLYN PICKLES: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about the inquiry into the honesty of the Premier.
Leave granted.

The Hon. CAROLYN PICKLES: Yesterday in the House of Assembly the Opposition attempted to detail a case that the Premier had deliberately misled the Parliament on at least five occasions in relation to statements he had made on the matter of Motorola. In an effort to avoid a decent and open debate in the House of Assembly on the issue, or to have it examined by a privileges committee, the Government has called—

The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The honourable member is seeking to reflect upon a debate in another place. As I understand Standing Orders, that is wholly out of order.

The PRESIDENT: To what Standing Order are you referring?

The Hon. Carolyn Pickles interjecting:

The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I will refer to the issue. The honourable member reflected by saying that what was attempted—

The PRESIDENT: To what particular Standing Order are you referring?

The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Standing Order 188, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: My advice is that there is no point of order. Honourable members can refer to the other House.

The Hon. CAROLYN PICKLES: In an effort to avoid a decent and open debate in the House of Assembly on that issue or to have it examined by a privileges committee, the Government has called on the Solicitor-General to carry out an inquiry into the matter. The Solicitor-General is not independent of Government. The Solicitor-General Act 1972, section 6—Duties and obligations of Solicitor-General — states:
The Solicitor-General —
(a) shall at the request of the Attorney-General—
(i) act as Her Majesty's counsel;
In other words, he is the Government's lawyer. The National Party MP for Chaffey, Ms Karlene Maywald, has now called for a truly independent inquiry to be carried out by a former judge. The Opposition, too, has called for an independent inquiry. My questions to the chief law officer of the State are:
1. Will the Government agree to a truly independent inquiry into the Premier's honesty to be carried out by a former judge with terms of reference that are agreed by the Parliament, that the inquiry have the power to call witnesses and that the full report arising from the inquiry be made public by tabling it in Parliament and, if not, why not?
2. What terms of reference has the Government proposed for the Solicitor-General's in-house inquiry?
3. Will the Solicitor-General's full report be tabled in Parliament along with all the evidence and documentation to be supplied to him and, if not, why not?

The Hon. KT GRIFFIN: The real problem is that the honourable member does not understand the role of the Solicitor-General, nor does she understand the role of the Attorney-General. I suggest she goes and does a bit of research. Although the Attorney-General is a Minister of the Crown, at common law the Attorney-General has independent responsibilities and functions and cannot be given a direction by the Government of the day.

The Hon. Carolyn Pickles interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: My predecessor the Hon. Mr Sumner actually made a very detailed statement about this when the honourable member was in the Council. He style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>laid out very carefully what the responsibility of the Attorney-General was. My recollection is that he also indicated what the role of the Solicitor-General might be. The Solicitor-General acts independently but can be given instructions by the Attorney-General to act as one of Her Majesty's counsel. You have to understand that one of Her Majesty's counsel means that he is an officer of the Supreme Court. He is an officer of the Supreme Court, anyway, as an admitted practitioner but, once he is made one of Her Majesty's counsel, a Queen's Counsel, he is truly an officer of the court. That makes him independent. I have been witness to what has been going on around the corridors yesterday and what has been whispered to the media, the snide remarks being made by a number of members opposite, including Mr Conlon and Mr Foley, trying to belittle what work the Solicitor-General will undertake. You have to remember that the Solicitor-General was Crown Solicitor, appointed by a Labor Administration. We appointed him as Solicitor-General but he was appointed because he was professional.

The Hon. Carolyn Pickles interjecting:

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Let me tell you what you used him for, and he acted quite professionally and with integrity in every respect. You used him to help get you out of the mess created by the State Bank debacle. He came down here to see me and the Leader of the Opposition when we were in Opposition to talk to us about the debacle and about how we could help as an Opposition to ensure that there was not a run on the bank. He came down here. We kept it confidential and we talked to him as a result of the information which he conveyed to us. So, you used him to do things which were in the interests of the State and he acted independently.

He has acted independently in every respect in anything that he has been asked to do by the present Government. I point out that, if the honourable member is starting to cast aspersions on him, some of the newspaper and media reports are changing a bit because some members, when they have been reported, are defaming him. They have tried to edge away from that and say, `We have no problem with his integrity. It is no reflection upon him; we just want someone independent.' Well, you cannot have it both ways. The honourable member knows that she cannot have it both ways. If members opposite are saying that they have no quarrel with his integrity, they should let him get on and do the job. He will publish a report which will be made available publicly. On the other hand, if you do not trust his integrity, say so. Do not try to cover it up and play the games that you are playing around the corridors and with the media. The fact is that he acts independently and will continue to act inde­pendently. In respect of the terms of reference, you will get them.

The Hon. CAROLYN PICKLES: I have a supplemen­tary question. Is the Attorney saying that the report and the terms of reference will be tabled in Parliament?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Quite obviously. What has the Government got to hide in relation to that? Of course the terms of reference will be made public. Of course the report will be made public. Why else would you have a report? Why else would you have an inquiry in the current atmosphere of innuendo, snide remarks and undercurrents that are around this place and the way in which the Opposition is seeking to undermine the Government for no other purpose than to create maximum mayhem? That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants—maximum mayhem. He is interested only in the polls. He is not interested in good government. He is not interested in integrity. He is not interested in any of that. All he wants is to create maximum mayhem. That is the way Mr Rann got into the job and what he has sought to establish in those periods since he has become the Leader the second or third time round, whatever it might be. He has acknowledged that maximum mayhem is what he is about. He is not about integrity in government; he is not about good government; and he is not about getting information and acting responsibly. That is the problem we are facing in terms of the Leader of the Opposition. But, quite obviously, why would anyone want to have an inquiry in the current climate and not want to make it public.

Of course the Solicitor-General's report will be made public and, with a bit of luck, it will be published even before the Parliament resumes in February . I cannot guarantee that because I do not know what workload he has in relation to the High Court and other functions. I do know that he has already started to work and he is already calling in documents and papers. I do know also that across the Public Service there will be a directive that the Public Service should cooperate with him and should provide documents and papers so that he can get to all the information which is available and present a report with a calm and balanced perspective. I have no doubt at all that that is what the Solicitor- General will do. That is what he should do and, if anyone has a quarrel with his integrity, they should say so and not hide behind the innuendo that is going around the corridors of this Parliament and in the media trying to pump everybody up. Let him get on with his job.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about the conflict of interest of the Solicitor-General in relation to his inquiry into the Premier.

Leave granted.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Attorney-General would be aware that the Solicitor-General is not independent of Government. The Solicitor-General, Mr Selway, was Crown Solicitor when the Crown Solicitor's office drew up the agreement between Motorola and the Government in June 1994 - the agreement the Premier is trying to rely on in his defence. Mr Selway was also the Crown Solicitor at the time that office drew up legal advice to the Cabinet IT subcommit­tee that the Premier's April 1994 letter to Motorola created a legally binding obligation to sign a deal with Motorola. The Government is asking the Solicitor-General to inquire into himself on advice he has previously given to Government. The Premier is placing the Solicitor-General in an impossible position. The Leader of the Opposition has today written to the Solicitor-General, placing these concerns before him, and I seek leave to table that letter.

Leave granted.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My question to the Attorney-General is: is he concerned by the conflict of interest facing the Solicitor-General and has he sought any legal opinion in relation to that conflict?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Quite obviously, members will endeavour to find anything they can to undermine an inquiry of this sort; now it is conflict of interest. I do not believe he has a conflict of interest.

The Hon. P. Holloway: He provided advice on these matters.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: That is not a conflict of interest. You will pump anything up into a conflict of interest if you can get something that will give it legs. I am not aware of a conflict of interest and do not believe one exists, and I will be interested to see this letter that the Leader of the Opposition has written, obviously seeking to undermine the inquiry

Top of Page