AG caught in confusion

Mark McGowan repeatedly said last week that he accepted the Federal Court’s judgment in the defamation showdown with billionaire Clive Palmer.

If that’s true, the premier should be pondering the future of his attorney-general.

John Quigley would have attracted many descriptors during his colourful crash-through or crash approach to the law and politics.

But last Tuesday, Western Australia’s first law officer was described in ways that seriously undermine confidence in his crucial role: to protect the rule of law and integrity of the courts.

Only sheer arrogance could shrug off Justice Michael Lee’s findings about Mr Quigley at the conclusion of Palmer versus McGowan.

“Regrettably, his evidence was both confused and confusing,” Justice Lee found.

“It follows that I do not consider it is safe to place any reliance upon Mr Quigley’s evidence.”

The judge also repeated a previous view that the attorney-general’s evidence was “all over the shop” and that “Mr Quigley was not a reliable historian of events”.

The judge’s evisceration of Mr Quigley only worsened when he drilled down even further into Mr Quigley’s two appearances in the case; the first to provide evidence, the second to correct errors in that evidence.

“With respect, Mr Quigley’s second appearance in the witness box just added to the brume of his testimony,” Justice Lee found.

“Even though his return was at his request, for the purpose of correcting ‘mistakes’, Mr Quigley misstated his previous evidence he said he wanted to change.”

In other words, the attorney-general got wrong what he’d already got wrong.

While it shouldn’t be enough to save Mr Quigley’s political skin, the judge did throw the premier a brittle bone, which he is using in defence of his attorney-general’s unreliable evidence.

“It is worth stressing that being a confused witness is a quite different thing from being a dishonest one,” Justice Lee said.

“As anyone experienced in calling witnesses is aware, the unexpected sometimes happens.”

One minute Mr Quigley was gleefully texting his premier with one-liners about Mr Palmer being a “big fat liar” and the next minute he’s being called an unreliable witness by a judge of the Federal Court.

Talk about the “vicissitudes of litigation”, as Justice Lee summed up the sudden change of circumstances.

It goes without saying that Mr McGowan would be very reluctant to punt his attorney-general and give the pugnacious Mr Palmer any sense of victory.

But putting pride aside, how can an attorney-general stay in a job that requires him to be beyond reproach on matters of law when a judge, albeit in one court case, found him to be unreliable?

Even the lawyer representing Mr McGowan described parts of Mr Quigley’s evidence as “outright silly”.

Previously, on the pages of this magazine, I gave an account of Mr Quigley’s character that should be concerning, given the attorney-general’s position demands utmost integrity.

He was either dishonest or displayed an appalling memory when answering questions in parliament in August 2021.

At a press conference following the defamation judgment last week, the premier applauded his attorney-general.

Mr McGowan said the attorney-general was fantastic in the way he stopped Mr Palmer’s attempt to claim $30 billion from the state over a blocked mining venture dating back to the Barnett government.

Mr Quigley self-promoted his efforts during a text exchange between himself and the premier, as the pair discussed how to “beat big fat Clive”.

“Hey, are you glad me single again … not making love in sweet hours before dawn instead worrying how to defeat Clive!”

Few would deny that the monster money-grab by the Queensland magnate was obscene and needed to be expunged.

But a new question of principle is at play following the pointless and expensive defamation claim and counterclaim between Mr Palmer and the premier, which followed weeks of name calling in 2020.

A judge has found an attorney-general provided unsafe and unreliable evidence in the Federal Court on two occasions in the witness box.

What would Mr Quigley be saying about that if he was still in opposition?