McGinty - the Parody of a competent Attorney General

Read my Lips! McGinty's superficiality and disingenuousness exposed

The prospect of Julian Grill being gaoled by the Legislative Council has not been attacked by Jim McGinty. Only strange eerie silence from the opportunistic Attorney General.

The Desert Rat remembers that in 1994 it was a different story, when the Legislative Council gaoled Brian Easton for a week. Jim McGinty the Opposition Leader was very quick to exploit the situation with a vitriolic attack on the “undemocratic” Upper House and its outdated powers.

McGinty appeared to be mortified by the actions of the Legislative Council and expressed great indignation at the gaoling of Easton. His wounded rhetoric flowed freely and he lambasted the Legislative Council. It went along the lines, that the gaoling of citizens for contempt without a fair trial constituted a fundamental denial of human rights.

McGinty’s comments were reported in The West Australian on 21 December 1994 where he stated that:

• a Labor government would overturn the law which allowed Parliament to jail people for contempt;

• he found the jailing of a WA citizen by the Legislative Council “without any right to be heard…to be quite horrific”;

• "the Labor Party is opposed to such a fundamental denial of human rights as imprisonment without trial";

• he thought “every decent WA citizen would be appalled with the Parliament exercising this power”;

• he didn’t agree “with any system of putting people in jail without allowing them to have a fair trial”.

Fourteen years later he hasn’t lifted a finger to fix the gaping problems, particularly the lack of suitable penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

In 2002 it was left to former Independent Philip Pendal MLA to move a Private Members Bill to fix the urgent problem created by the link between the State Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 and the House of Commons Act where a superior Court judgment in the United Kingdom automatically changed the interpretation of our State Act - because the link still existed between the House of Common Act and our Act.

The ramifications of this issue were serious.

Our esteemed Attorney General Jim McGinty was so miffed by Philip Pendal’s initiative, (McGinty's own inaction exposed), that he didn’t even bother to get off his shiny backside and speak in the debate.

So much for his interest in parliamentary privilege which the Desert Rat thinks McGinty must have feigned in 1994.

Obviously McGinty doesn’t really care about the Western Australian Parliament having the power to imprison its citizens, where natural justice is not guaranteed by the Huouse procedures.

Despite the passing of fourteen years, seven years of which he has been Attorney General, during which he has seen fit to introduce all sorts of rubbish legislation, McGinty could not be bothered fixing this “horrific” situation – as he described it.

The Desert Rat thinks that McGinty must be salivating at the thought of Julian Grill going to gaol without being afforded any opportunity of the right of natural justice.

No comment, no concern and no attempt to lift a finger to fix this "horrific" problem.

CCC Responsible for Legislative Council Mess

Contempt Charge: Misguided or Phoney?

The Legislative Council has found itself between a rock and a hard place in its handling of the so called “contempt” charge against Julian Grill.

The big mistake of the Legislative Council Committee was to allow a Corruption and Crime Commission lawyer Philip Uruquart into the proceedings. As a result of Uruquart’s influence, it was the CCC agenda that was run exclusively in the second part of the Inquiry.

Laurie Marquet the former Clerk of the Legislative Council was very wise and knowledgeable in matters parliamentary and constitutional. While it is clear Marquet made some big errors near the end of his life with drug addiction and theft to sustain the abusive habit, he was prior to that, a formidable opponent and intellect - in his prime.

Laurie Marquet would never have allowed a Crime and Corruption Commission lawyers to become involved in the operation of a Legislative Council committee. He certainly would have opposed ceding any rights or powers to any statutory body outside parliament to operate within parliament.

Marquet realised the importance of not allowing Legislative Council committees to be manipulated by outside lawyers. Lawyers should be welcome to advise their client, sometimes state their case, but never be allowed to run the show. Therein is the genesis of the current stand-off.

There was a sea change when Crime and Corruption Commission lawyer Philip Uruquart came in to run proceedings in the second part of the inquiry. The Desert Rat believes the CCC has a lot to answer for this debacle in the Legislative Council.

The appalling treatment of Julian Grill and the denial of natural justice and procedural fairness to him is bizarre by any standard. The Legislative Council committee’s finding is without substance in fact and was in any event outside their powers.

The Desert Rat puts this outcome down to the result of CCC lawyer Philip Uruquart’s influence. The CCC has a lot to answer for its involvement in this debacle. The Desert Rat believes anyone with integrity and pride would certainly prefer to go to gaol rather than capitulate to misguided or phoney contempt charges.

Laurie Marquet was an arch enemy of Jim McGinty and continually thwarted his attempts to use the Legislative Council to achieve his political ends in matters of electoral tinkering and Legislative Council voting procedures. Laurie Marquet was another enemy of McGinty who was pursued by the CCC, unfortunately to his death bed.

In his prime he was more than a match for Jim McGinty and outpointed him at every turn. The Desert Rat understands that Jim McGinty despised Marquet.

The unravelling of the resulting mess will be there for all to see. CEO Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone and the rest of McGinty's CCC secret police will keep their heads down.

Why Julian Grill should not apologise

Greens Giz Watson thinks Julian Grill is innocent

What caught the Desert Rat’s eye recently was Greens MLC Giz Watson’s speech in Hansard, where she concedes in the debate (4 December 2007) of the Privileges Committee, that she thinks the argument put forward by Julian Grill’s lawyers, is correct.

Giz Watson then says she won’t oppose the recommendation (No 20) before the House; that Julian Grill should apologise to the House. Presumably Giz Watson would have abstained if there was a division - which there was not, because it was decided on the voices.

It has taken some time for the Desert Rat to get his pointy snout and whiskers into the entrails of this issue and make some sense of the Legislative Council Committee's Report and findings against Julian Grill.

The quote in the report that gives rise to the finding that Grill leaked information, is clearly wrong and dangerously damaging to Julian Grill. The Desert Rat wonders why the Committee took the quite unprecedented step of bringing in Philip Urquhart as the Counsel Assisting the Committee (previously he was Counsel Assisting the Corruption and Crime Commission) to run the second half of this inquiry. There have been questions asked by Senior Counsel as to whether such a step was legal.

The Desert Rat can clearly see, as can Hon Giz Watson, that what is quoted in the Finding of the Committee Report (Rec. 20) is not the same as the evidence given by Brian Burke. Mr Burke never said “that Mr Grill had advised him of the fact that those documents had been requested by the Committee”

The Desert Rat is not suggesting anything nefarious, but just an honest misinterpretation made by the Committee. This type of situation is why those witnesses like Mr Grill, should have the right to know when they are being accused and have the matter tried before a competent court or tribunal. Such mistakes can then be corrected by an impartial body.

The Desert Rat would hope that Philip Urquhart was not involved in writing that part of the report given the shoddy reports recently written by the CCC officers - such as the phoney and incompetent findings against Paul Frewer, Dr Wally Cox and now Dr Mike Allen in the Smith Beach Inquiry.

Whatever the case, it is disappointing that Giz Watson did not take her belief in Julian Grill’s innocence further than she did and call a division. Then the issue would have been out in the open and other members of the Legislative Council would have to properly debate the issue.

It is not surprising that Julian Grill’s lawyers advised him not to apologise to the Legislative Council Committee.