After having two goes at providing evidence in the McGowan versus Palmer defamation case, John Quigley has some clearing up to do closer to home.
THE two cafe customers were clearly perplexed by the actions of an animated man who insisted repeatedly that they surrender their beachside table to him.
It was in view of the car park, where a photographer armed with a long lens was covertly waiting for the sting operation in Scarborough to begin.
Having finally secured the table, Labor MP John Quigley sat down, confident his unsuspecting target – the editor of The West Australian newspaper – would arrive any minute.
When Paul Armstrong strolled up and took a seat opposite Mr Quigley, the photographer’s camera shutter went into overdrive.
What played out next was vintage Quigley: unorthodox, audacious and dramatic.
By the time the tense meeting between the politician and editor was over, a new chapter in Perth’s media folklore had been written.
A hardened criminal lawyer long before he went into politics, Mr Quigley had convinced Mr Armstrong to sign a peace-deal document as a way of resolving recent hostilities between the MP for Innaloo and the morning daily.
Three days later, the secretly obtained photograph of the cafe signing appeared in The West’s rival paper, the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Sunday Times.
The story, published on October 31 2004, suggested Mr Quigley’s political career had been threatened by the editor, and the signed piece of paper, with its very specific wording, was reproduced to support the claim.
“I accept that John Quigley has honoured his word in giving me this apology and, by doing so, has not rendered himself unfit for public office,” it read.
There was much more to the saga and what led up to the cafe meeting, most of it too puerile to rehash.
But the purpose of recalling the incident is to illustrate how the one-time Labor backbencher, who rose to become attorney-general of Western Australia, knows how to play hard and fast.
Mr Quigley’s more recent public dramas – born of the Clive Palmer versus Mark McGowan defamation case in the Federal Court – would come as no surprise to many observers of the 73-year-old’s legal and political life.
Subpoenaed text messages between the premier and his attorney-general highlighted the pair’s cavalier attitude to taking on the Queensland billionaire, who was pursuing a legal claim for an absurd amount of $30 billion from the state of WA.
The mobile phone banter included references to Mr Palmer being a “big fat liar”, a “turd” and the “worst Australian not in jail”.
This is embarrassing and has the potential to neutralise Mr McGowan’s counterclaim of defamation against Mr Palmer.
Just as disconcerting was Mr Quigley’s first appearance before the defamation trial in Sydney on March 9.
He and his staff later realised the attorney-general had given false testimony and asked if he could return to correct the record.
By the time his second stint in the witness box ended on April 8, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee had described some of Mr Quigley’s evidence as being “all over the shop”.
The barrister representing the premier in the trial, Brett Walker, said some of what the attorney-general had told the court “borders on the outright silly”.
While that arguably pointless and expensive litigation in the Federal Court continues to receive widespread media attention, the attorney-general has managed to avoid a similar level of scrutiny about public statements he made on another issue.
These were answers to parliament in August 2021 when questioned by opposition leader Mia Davies about the appointment of former Supreme Court judge Neville Owen to the Crown Casino Royal Commission.
Mr Owen has a close personal and business relationship with Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes.
It’s no secret that the billionaire has had strong ties to Crown’s major shareholder, James Packer.
It was incumbent on the media to ask questions about the connections and some reporters, including Business News senior editor Mark Beyer, did pursue the potential conflicts of interest.
At the time, Seven West Media publications failed to report two public declarations Mr Owen made at the inquiry about his “close personal association” with Mr Stokes.
Seven West chief executive Maryna Fewster was also a Crown Perth director.
John Alexander is a non-executive director of Seven West and had been the executive chairman of Crown.
“None of this raises in my mind a conflict of interest,” Mr Owen said during his first declaration on July 26 last year.
His second declaration came four days later following reporters’ questions about a Stokes company board, of which Mr Owen was a member.
“I am a director of a company associated with the family interests of the chairman [Stokes],” Mr Owen said.
“I am satisfied that neither that nor any other aspect of my personal association with the chairman [Stokes] conflicts with my obligations to or in this royal commission.”
On August 3, Mr Quigley was asked on camera by a reporter from Nine News if he had been aware of the links between Mr Owen and Mr Stokes.
He replied “no”.
A short time later, at 9.09am, Mr Quigley rang my mobile telephone to discuss the questions from Nine, where I was working as the state political editor at the time.
During the 16-minute conversation, the attorney-general made it perfectly clear he would not have supported Mr Owen’s appointment as a commissioner on the Crown inquiry had he known how close the former judge and the media tycoon were.
“It wouldn’t have happened,” Mr Quigley told me.
“Royal commissioners have to be completely independent.”
He said Mr McGowan had first raised Mr Owen’s name with him in the months leading up to the royal commission.
The attorney-general recalled a telephone call he received from the premier while at a cafe in the northern suburb of Alkimos.
Mr Quigley then provided a lead for me to chase as a way of confirming his view on the Owen appointment.
He rang back at 9.27am, and again at 9.32am, to make sure I had a specific telephone number.
At that point, the discussion with the attorney-general was understood to be off the record.
Two weeks later, Nine News ran a story at the top of its 6pm bulletin.
The report included a response from the premier, who was asked if he had put Mr Owen’s name forward for the royal commission role.
“It was something decided by the cabinet,” he said.
“I couldn’t tell you exactly how his name came forward.”
The next day, the Stokes-owned morning newspaper ran a curious story in reaction to Nine’s piece. Headlined, “WA casino lead ‘impeccable’ says Quigley”, the story didn’t have a reporter’s byline on it and questioned the validity of Nine’s sources.
“I support the appointment of Neville Owen,” Mr Quigley was quoted as saying.
That sudden rebuttal by the attorney-general rendered his previous off-the-record conversation with me redundant.
But the state’s most senior law officer went even further in parliament when Ms Davies decided to pursue the differing accounts about the Owen issue in question time.
“Is it true that the attorney-general told a journalist on 3 August that if he had known of the business and personal connections between Justice Owen and Mr Kerry Stokes, he would not have supported the decision to appoint Justice Owen,” Ms Davies asked.
Mr Quigley responded by saying he fully supported the appointment, but Ms Davies persisted.
“Just so I am absolutely clear, did the attorney-general not tell a journalist that had he known of the business and personal connections between Justice Owen and Mr Stokes, he would have objected to the decision to appoint Justice Owen?”
“I have no recollection of ever telling a journalist that at all,” was the attorney-general’s response, 16 days after making the three calls to my mobile phone.
When clearing up his initial evidence to the Palmer versus McGowan defamation trial, Mr Quigley blamed a “memory failure” for his mistakes.
On the question of Mr Owen’s appointment to the Crown royal commission – and what the attorney-general really thought about it – phone records might jog his recollection.
Before publishing, Business News asked Mr Quigley if he stood by what he said in parliament.
He was also given the opportunity to comment on his phone call to this reporter on August 3.
“The attorney general has fully supported the appointment of Neville Owen to the Perth Casino royal commission as a royal commissioner,” was the response.
The opposition has been calling on the premier to replace Mr Quigley over his bungled evidence to the Federal Court in Sydney.
Perhaps the Liberals and Nationals should be looking closer to home and to those answers the attorney-general gave them in parliament.
