JOHN HOLLAND —
LITIGATION
261. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the minister representing the
Minister for Finance:
I refer to the Treasurer's
outraged accusations, reported inter alia in The West Australian of 12
February 2019, against construction firm John Holland of selective media
leaking in respect of litigation involving the state.
(1) What evidence does the minister
have that John Holland was responsible for that leak?
(2) Has he made
any inquiry into whether the source of the leak was someone connected with
government?
(3) If yes to
(2), what inquiry has he conducted and with what result; and, if he has not
inquired, why not and will he do so?
(4) If the
Treasurer is unable to support his slanderous accusation, will he apologise;
and, if not, why not?
The PRESIDENT: Minister for
Environment, I think you are okay to answer everything except perhaps that last
question.
Hon
STEPHEN DAWSON replied:
I thank you, Madam President, for
your guidance.
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. The following information has been provided to me
by the Minister for Finance.
(1) The initial
report on radio 6PR detailed John Holland's litigation strategy against
the state government, including legal advice
to John Holland on three specific litigation scenarios. The report included the
words ''I am told John Holland are up for the fight; they are
going to dig in'' and John Holland ''are determined to go to
court if necessary''. Given the report was about John Holland's
position on litigation, it was reasonable to make the observations made in
relation to the source of the information.
(2) No. It is not
normal practice for plaintiffs to share their litigation strategy with
defendants and, on this occasion, the government was not aware of much of the
information contained in the report.
(3) Please refer to the answer to
(2).
(4) Noting your guidance on (4),
Madam President, I will leave that answer.