STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES — FIFTY-FIFTH REPORT —STATE SOLICITOR'S
OFFICE
908. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Leader of the House
representing the Attorney General:
I refer to the Attorney General's
refusal to advise Parliament of the procedure followed by the State Solicitor's
Office to identify and remove documents provided to it that ''may''
be the subject of parliamentary privilege, and to identify the officers and
staff who had access to those documents and made those decisions.
(1) On what basis
is that information regarding process and by whom it was carried out, absent of
any disclosure of legal advice, subject to legal professional privilege?
(2) Is his answer
of 20 August supported by legal advice; and, if so, from whom and when was it
sought and obtained?
(3) Will the
Attorney General now reconsider his refusal to provide information to
Parliament and supply the information sought?
Hon SUE ELLERY replied:
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the
question.
(1) The
process by which documents that constituted proceedings in Parliament could be
identified, which of necessity requires the application of legal
considerations, including the precise parameters of the term ''proceedings
in Parliament'', forms part of the legal advice provided to the state on
the matter. That information forms part of a confidential communication between
the state and its legal advisers and is properly the subject of legal
professional privilege. It has already been made clear that that process was
undertaken by the State Solicitor's Office, whose officers are officers
of the state. Even if it were the case that their names were not the subject of
legal professional privilege, I do not propose to provide their names. They are
officers of the state who were acting under instructions from the Department of
the Premier and Cabinet.
(2) Legal advice was sought and received from the State
Solicitor's Office.
(3) Noting the above, no.