MPs Allowance Scandal & THAT laptop

So, ex-Liberal MP Phil Edman was investigated by the CCC over misuse of his electoral allowances and the results are in, its unsavoury & well below any pub test to say the very least.

If what I'm told is correct (and I'm understanding it right), a complaint was laid & the CCC investigated. If a complaint was not laid they would not have. I'm waiting to hear if that's correct for whatever that's worth, but it seems that's what the CCC isn't conducting a full investigation into ALL the WA MPs to see what's been done.

That and then there'd be the seriously dangerous precedent of over reach and the loss of Parliamentary Privilege. Yes the threat to that Privilege is serious and the implications are huge & wide. It means genuine actions & discussions held in confidence to help a legislator perform their duties are over. It will ham string legislators, it will also mean all whistleblowers or victims will not come forward. There may also be from time to time confidential briefings from law enforcement, security agencies, victim groups, a wide range of groups that need to be able to talk freely with the legislators. That will kill all candor because then the MPs laptops & briefing notes etc are loudspeakers to the public.

Worth mentioning at this point in time (19/12/2019) ex MP Phil Edman has been found to been declared by the CCC to have committed Serious Misconduct but at this point, that's actually not a criminal offence. Police will no doubt look very closely to see what laws have been broken and if it they consider there have been they'll lay criminal charges. That may or may not happen (because I can't see the future) but the process is rolling as one would & should expect.

My understanding is the CCC has not pursued any other MP because at this stage no complaint has been lodged. The CCC gained the laptop but it was legally taken back by the Upper House because it was thought to have been in breach of Parliamentary Privilege.

So its worth remembering...

1) That there are Upper House MPs who actually don't support Mr Edman or his actions at all but want the laptop away from the CCC solely because of the over reach effect on Parliamentary Privilege and the immense damage it will do to the abilities of the Parliament to perform its functions properly & in the best interests of the state.

2) The CCC wants the laptop because, among other things, there's a high likelihood there's information that may lead to other instances of serious misconduct, potentially criminal offences either by Mr Edman and/or others.

3) Now ideally balancing 1) and 2) would be the aim and I imagine that's what the court is doing now, trying to reach a balance that achieves CCC aims without undermining Parliamentary Privilege but there next "variable" is there looks to be some Labor MPs who want the laptop given to the CCC for political gain. Sue Ellery got into a Twitter exchange about the slow pace of the VAD amendments where another Labor MP called it "truly an affront to democracy"...it wasn't and concerns me that Sue Ellery didn't correct her or the lower house MP didn't "get it" before her twitter attack. Ironically if the VAD had been rubber stamped 55 amendments would not have been put through to strengthen the bill, the Upper House (the House of Review) would not have done its job and all facets of seriousness would not have been looked by legislators and the Parliament effectively would have been side stepped with changes then done by bureaucrats behind a shroud controlled by a government department and a minister/cabinet. So some Labor MPs sense the whiff of Liberal Party blood in the water, with possibly even the possibility of not only political damage the opposition but slim chance of getting some Liberal MPs being forced to resign if they're guilty of serious misconduct.

So I see both sides. There needs to be a way that the CCC gets the information it needs, if it exists and then maintaining parliamentary privilege. This will be intensely difficult and there are Labor Upper House MPs who see this Parliamentary over reach problem and do not support the CCC having full access & control to all sensitive material.

Its a serious landmark moment for democracy and I don't expect either Sue Ellery MLC or Labor's Jessica Stojkowski MLA to understand or to care since they're so party politically driven.

As for the actually spending of allowances, I've spoken with 6 MPs all from different parties (none from the Greens) and there is a lot of reporting about the spending by MPs and a report is lodged with the Australian Tax Office. They have a lot of work to be done explaining their spending TAX WISE, but not so much on what's prudent & in the electorate/state's best interests. I think that's a separate matter and gives rise to a full review & reform of the MPs reporting standards to streamline it so its sensible and reasonably oriented towards achieving compliance but not being so onerous that extra staff are required for the reporting function.

Again that is a separate issue and if it were already in place much of the lavish pleasure spending might have been prevented. There will need to be a review into reforming the system to making it workable for all involved AND being able to engender compliance.

For now, we have a lap top that has the potential to alter the foundation of parliamentary privilege which is a huge negative effect & to use Jessica Stojkowski MLA's words in an actually useful way, "truly an affront to democracy"

We don't know if the information within the laptop will hit ex MPs or currently sitting MPs. I suspect Sue Ellery is just keen on political damage and some Labor MPs do harbour huge resentment for the Upper House & would be happier if it were abolished. I can see by the Queensland example, no house of review comes with a great negative cost often.

So how this plays out is still unclear, it will play out in the courts.
There needs to be a mechanism that allows for access to information that shows Crime/Corruption activity by an MP without demolishing Parliamentary Privilege. I thought we had that with the Committees structure but maybe not.

So yes I would happily like to see any MP of any political stripe convicted of any criminal charges they're guilty of. I'd like to see any MP declared to have committed serious misconduct to be referred to WA Police to see if charges are warranted. All without Fear nor Favour but at the same time without any threat to Parliamentary Privilege.

This will be some time unfolding but...we just have to wait and be patient because despite Sue & Jessica's view on things, Democracy must be thorough, legal, reasonable and not constrained by a timeline or any other arbitrary whim that suits any party or MP.

My best guess, the courts will NOT look at the content at all in making a decision. My guess is the courts will look at whether or not releasing the lap top will undermine Parliamentary Privilege ONLY.

That will probably have to take primary or only focus.

I'm not even sure if the Upper House can open the lap top to start an investigation of their own.