- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 21 September 2006
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Political Interference Allegations
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 16 of 45
| Next Item »
Page: 2114
Mr PAUL LYNCH: I address my question to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on the Government's response to concerns of political interference in criminal investigations?
Mr CARL SCULLY: The responsibility for administering justice is very important and it must be impartial. The Government has been very concerned about the actions of the Opposition in the past few weeks, particularly the Leader of the Opposition. Questions can now be raised over the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to these matters. The Leader of the Opposition does not apologise for his phone call to Mr Greg Smith in respect of the decision not to prosecute a particular individual for serious sexual offences. Mr Heffernan also made a phone call. This was at a time when Mr Smith was a candidate for Liberal Party preselection in Epping. Yesterday we heard the Crown Solicitor's advice:
It was, in my view, inappropriate for Mr Debnam and Senator Heffernan to have approached Mr Smith directly by telephone. I think it is inappropriate for a high public office holder to communicate directly with an independent decision maker.
The question is whether that might constitute corruption under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The Crown Solicitor states:
An attempt by Mr Debnam to improperly influence [the] decision not to prosecute, had such [an attempt] occurred, could be corrupt conduct under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act …
Under section 8 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act "corrupt conduct" is defined as "any conduct of any person that could adversely affect the honest or impartial exercise of official functions". It also defines "corrupt conduct" as the "conduct of a public official that constitutes … partial exercise of any of his or her … functions". We need to know what discussions occurred between Mr Heffernan and Mr Smith, and between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Smith. They have made it plain that they have had those discussions. The facts are simple, and everyone in this House should be quite concerned about the scenario. First, the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] made a decision not to prosecute an alleged offender charged for a huge number of sex crimes.
Mr Donald Page: Point of order: Standing Order 82 requires a member who wishes to launch an attack on another member to do so by way of substantive motion. The purpose of the standing order is to allow the accused, in this case, to have an opportunity to respond. So the attack has to be made by way of substantive motion. The Minister is clearly engaging in gutter tactics under the guise of a parliamentary question. I ask you to rule the answer out of order as it is contrary to Standing Order 82.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police was quoting from a particular section of the Independent Commission Against Corruption legislation at the time the point of order was taken. I caution members against making a direct attack on any person in this place. Nonetheless, the Minister is perfectly at liberty to advise the House on the precise implications of the ICAC legislation and the consequences that may flow to any member of this place should the legislation be transgressed.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The facts are these. One, a decision was made by the DPP not to prosecute an individual for serious sex crimes. Two, there was very strong negative community and media reaction. Three, Mr Smith was then Acting Director of Public Prosecutions and was a candidate for Liberal Party preselection in Epping. Four, a phone call occurred between Mr Debnam and Mr Heffernan. Five, mysteriously, Mr Smith, acting as Director of Public Prosecutions, then decided to prosecute.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: We need to know: How did Mr Smith form the view that a prosecution should occur? Did he only take into account questions like the sufficiency of evidence and the likelihood of conviction? If he did, fine. That is his job. But, if he took into account political considerations—such as: Will this affect the Liberal Party's standing in the community and the election? Will it affect his likelihood of winning preselection?—that constitutes corrupt conduct. Had the Leader of the Opposition and/or Mr Heffernan rung up and said, "What's the evidence like? What's the likelihood of prosecution succeeding"—if that had been the only conversation, that would have been—
Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: Yesterday the Minister tabled the Crown Solicitor's advice. The Crown Solicitor says in paragraph 4.14—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. He well knows that he is not complying with the standing orders.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will have ample opportunity to deal with the matter at another time.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Had that been the only discussion—that is, "Hello, Greg. It's Peter here. Will we get a conviction? Is it likely the prosecution will succeed?"—had that been the only discussion, it would have been inappropriate, unethical and a conflict of interest, and should not have occurred, and would be deserving of a slap on the wrist, and that is all. It would not be corrupt. But it defies belief that, in the maelstrom that followed this person not being prosecuted, there would not have been some semblance of a discussion. It defies belief that there would have been no words exchanged like, "This ain't good for the Libs. It's not looking good for you in the preselection. What are you going to do to fix it up?" It defies belief, and we need to know the answers to these questions.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: I draw attention to chapter 10 of Standing Rules and Orders, regarding questions seeking information. Standing Order 139 clearly states:
In answering a Member shall not debate the matter to which the question relates.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw the Minister's attention to that standing order. I ask the Minister to direct his remarks through the Chair and to be precise in his response.
Mr CARL SCULLY: We need answers to these questions, and ICAC will be asked to investigate those questions. The Leader of the Opposition needs to be interrogated—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will cease calling out. I call him to order for the second time.
Mr CARL SCULLY: He needs to swear on oath, before counsel assisting ICAC, what did he say, and did he allude to any political outcome because, if he did, neither he nor Mr Smith is fit for public office. I have said enough about that tawdry part of these extended affairs about public administration. I think there is enough for the public to know that you should never trust these characters with the administration of justice in this State. The only place for them to properly answer the questions I have raised today is down at the Independent Commission Against Corruption.We have had Mr Smith give a daily diet of his defences—another one today, another one yesterday, and another one the day before. The first defence, as I told the House yesterday, was: Yes, I might not have told the police first, but my explanation for that is, "Who leaked it?" I was rather intrigued. Who leaked what? As I said yesterday, and I stand by it: Who cares? I want the explanation.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order—
Mr CARL SCULLY: Maybe we cruelly blamed the member for Gosford. He says he did do it. I accept that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order. The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the third time. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr Peter Debnam: Carl Scully is lying.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call him to order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Shakespeare said, "Methinks thou doth protest too much." Shock, horror, I have seen the document—the document that has caused the demise of Greg Smith. And who leaked it? Is that going to explain it? It is unbelievable! That is the document that they are using as an explanation for him not telling police first about these most serious allegations. I am thinking, "What's in it?" Nothing much—except a presentation of the circumstances and what actions were taken. But it is interesting that the person's name at the end of the document, the person who is accountable for the document, who obviously would have read it but is responsible for producing the document, was Greg Smith. Unbelievable!
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: Mr Speaker, again I draw your attention to the standing orders of this Parliament. Standing Order 139, in chapter 10, clearly states:
In answering a question a Member shall not debate the matter to which the question relates.
The Minister is flouting your ruling. Indeed, he is placing you in an embarrassing position. I would suggest that he abide by the rules of this Parliament, instead of playing out a penny-ante act.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I draw the Minister's attention to Standing Order 139. I request that he provide an answer to the Chamber and that he do so not by asking rhetorical questions, which could be perceived as debating the question.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I have been asked to express information about the Government's response to concerns of political interference. The second explanation was: the police are to blame. I dealt with that yesterday. I think that was an appalling allegation: it is the fault of the police because he did not notify them! I do not get called dumb too often, but I still have not worked that one out. Then we had: it is the fault of Nick Cowdery. We dispensed with that yesterday. Now, the new one today: it is not his fault, because he consulted with the other deputy; he consulted with Mr Tedeschi. Therefore, divide and conquer, he is only 331/3 per cent responsible because he consulted with two other people. No, he cannot get away with that. He was the acting chief executive; he has to bear responsibility. He is again quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald today. I would suggest he just shut up and stop briefing the Herald, because he just creates a bigger hole for himself. The more he digs, the bigger the hole gets. Greg Smith said, "I told the police what steps we had taken." But I have checked again with the police and that is incorrect. He did not tell the police that he had informed Mr Power first.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Clearly the Minister for Police is using the opportunity of a question and his answer to that question to launch into a number of personal attacks and allegations relating to the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal candidate for Epping. If he wishes to do so, under Standing Order 82 he must do so by way of substantive motion. I ask you to uphold the standards of this House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! At the time the Leader of The Nationals took his point of order the Minister was talking about the actions of a person who is not a member of this House. That person has been the subject of questions. The Minister is in order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Again, Greg Smith was talking to the Sydney Morning Herald, which obviously is his paper of choice, putting his case most clumsily. He has endeavoured—
Mr Andrew Stoner: So you are allowed to slander a private citizen under parliamentary privilege with impunity. It is grubby.
Mr CARL SCULLY: No, but the people of Epping need to know that he has now joined the ranks of cop bashers. The Leader of the Opposition is a cop basher. All those opposite are cop bashers. Please go forth with the clarion call: They are all cop bashers. They are always bagging the cops. They should know better than that.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: I have some sympathy for you, Mr Speaker, because you have endeavoured to bring the Minister back to the rules of debate under Standing Order 139. I suggest you sit him down until he understands what Standing Order 139 says: In answering a question, a member shall not debate the matter to which the question relates. Clearly, he does not understand. I sympathise with you, Mr Speaker, for trying to control this man who holds a senior office, but he cannot understand.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the two previous occasions the honourable member for Lachlan took this point of order I acknowledged that it had some merit. However, I do not acknowledge that it has merit this time. The Minister is providing information. He is not asking rhetorical questions or debating the issue. The Minister has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I do not apologise for being the Minister for Police. I am for them. I am going to back them. When I read in the newspaper that he had said, "I told everything to the police"—guess what?—early this morning I made a phone call and asked, "Is this right?" And I was told, "No, it ain't." They are becoming extremely disappointed. Are we going to have another story in the Sydney Morning Herald from Greg Smith saying that he did things when we know he did not? Why does he not, for once, put his hand up and say, "I got it wrong. I am sorry. I made a mistake. I panicked. I should have done this. If he were to do that I would get off his case, but if he keeps bagging the cops as a defence for what he did, I will stay on it. I expect two things: I want the Leader of the Opposition to be interrogated by ICAC, and I want Mr Smith to apologise.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:44:04 : Update this page