PREMIER — CLIVE PALMER — DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS
1018. Hon PETER COLLIER to
the Leader of the House representing the Premier:
I ask this question on behalf of Hon Michael Mischin, who is
on urgent parliamentary business.
I refer to the Premier's defamation action by way of
counterclaim against Mr Clive Palmer wherein the Premier claims to have been
defamed by him.
(1) Did the
Premier consult with the Attorney General before instructing solicitors to
proceed; and, if not, why not?
(2) Should the Premier's claim be unsuccessful, who
will bear the costs of those proceedings?
(3) If it is the state of Western Australia, why?
(4) If Mr
Palmer's action alleging that the Premier has defamed him is
successful, who will pay any award of damages awarded in his favour and who
will pay any costs ordered to be paid in his favour?
(5) If it is the state of Western Australia, why?
Hon SUE ELLERY replied:
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the
question.
(1) Yes.
(2) The
statement of cross-claim is just one part of the defamation defence in response
to the action launched by Clive Palmer. The costs of filing the statement of cross-claim
as a proportion of the overall cost of defending Mr Palmer's action is
not able to be quantified, but is not a significant additional amount.
(3)–(5)
As former Premier Colin Barnett reportedly pointed out in December 2016 in
relation to the previous government's cabinet decision to fund the
costs of defamation action against Hon Joe Francis —
''It
was a long established rule that if a minister, in doing his job, someone takes
(legal) action against him—and that can happen for all sorts of reasons—then
the State stands behind (the minister),'' �
I note the
honourable member was Attorney General in the cabinet that made that decision.