Wednesday, 11 May 2022
Production of documents
John Woodman
Production of documents
John Woodman
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): I move:
That this house, in accordance with standing order 11.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all emails and other correspondence since 4 December 2014 between the Premier or the office of the Premier and:
(1) Mr John Woodman;
(2) Mr John Woodman’s employees; and
(3) Mr John Woodman’s companies.
This is a very straightforward documents motion in the sense that it seeks a set of documents in the possession of the Premier and the Premier’s office. These are readily obtainable documents. Since 2014, since the change of government, it does appear that there has been regular communication between Mr Woodman and his firms and the Premier and the Premier’s office—certainly other parts of government. It is clear that these documents are now of public significance.
There is an IBAC investigation, Operation Sandon, as people will be aware after the last debate. That investigation has drawn very significant public profile to these public matters, and the hearings that IBAC is undertaking are very significant here. Operation Sandon is a matter that needs to be discussed. My point is that Operation Sandon has shone a light on Mr Woodman and made it very clear that there needs to be close public scrutiny in particular of the Premier and others. This chamber is entitled to see what relations have occurred between Mr Woodman and his entities and the Premier and the Premier’s office. We know the Premier dined at the Flower Drum with Mr Woodman, we know that the Premier has regularly met with Mr Woodman and we know that the Premier has a longstanding relationship with Mr Woodman. You may well be aware that Mr Woodman’s long history with the Premier goes way back to 2002, and in fact the truth of the matter is there is a long relationship there that goes back to a legal office that had dealings with Mr Woodman, a legal office that is very close to the Premier. The Premier’s father-in-law I believe actually is a close associate of Mr Woodman, so I say these documents should be scrutinised very closely.
Mr DAVIS: They sure should. This chamber should see these documents.
Mr DAVIS: If there is nothing to hide here—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Melhem!
Mr DAVIS: The community want high probity when it comes to planning matters. They do not want planning matters that are compromised. They do not want planning matters where a minister, including a non-planning minister, is intervening. We will see what Operation Sandon says, but I think quite separately from that the community is entitled to see the links and the communications between the Premier, the Premier’s office and Mr Woodman. The truth is something that the community should see here. It is in the public interest for these matters to be dealt with sensibly. It is a matter where the public should be able to see these points.
We know the chamber has the powers to get these documents. The High Court case around Sydney Water is well known. The Egan case makes it clear that the Legislative Council chamber and other chambers around the country have the power to obtain these documents, and it is in the public interest that these documents come to light. If there is nothing to fear, they should have nothing to hide, and the community will very much judge the Premier on the facts of these matters. I say these documents should be in the public domain, and it is my intention to pursue this through the chamber.
Obviously this motion is very much in the format of a standard documents motion. It is a documents motion that seeks these for the purposes of the public interest.
Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Deputy President, I have asked Dr Cumming to move away from in front, and she has refused to do so. Can we have a bit of decorum in the chamber?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, I ask you to take your seat.
Mr DAVIS: I am conscious that the chamber has dealt with many matters today, and I am conscious that this is a documents motion that will require further debate by the chamber. I am also conscious that Mr Meddick will want to talk about his motion in the next couple of minutes, and in these circumstances I have made my contribution. I have made it clear that this set of documents is in the public interest. They are readily obtainable. They relate to the period of this government, relate to the time that the Premier has occupied that office and relate to the links of Mr Woodman and his various firms.
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:35): IBAC has an important function. Investigations are an integral part of IBAC’s functions relating to corruption and police misconduct. There are longstanding rules of sub judice that members of Parliament should not run a commentary on matters being considered by a commission before it reports. This motion should not be passed, and the chamber should not depart from the longstanding convention and undermine the work of IBAC. This motion specifically and deliberately encroaches on the work of IBAC. The government otherwise consistently upholds its obligations to the Parliament to provide responses to documents motions.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (14:36): I move:
That debate be adjourned until later this day.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.