If Premier Richard Court must have an inquiry into the Easton affair, the proper place is the Western Australian Parliament. Instead he has opted for a Royal commission to be headed by a retired Victorian Supreme Court judge. At issue is whether in November 1992 the then Western Australian Premier and now Federal Health Minister Carmen Lawrence knew the details beforehand of a petition to be tabled in the Western Australian Parliament.
The petition was presented by a Labor backbencher. It falsely asserted that the then Leader of the Opposition now Premier, Richard Court, had improperly given material to Perth lawyer Penny Easton about the commercial dealings of her estranged husband Brian Easton and that Mrs Easton had perjured herself in a Family Law matter. Mrs Easton committed suicide four days later. If she had not there would have been no fuss. The whole thing would have been put down as another little political game to make the other side look sleazy. But she did commit suicide. So the back-fire has had wider repercussions.
It has not been stated in so many words but there is an implication that those who had any part or knowledge of the plan to table the petition were somehow partly responsible for the suicide. That unsustainable view has come about because one of Dr Lawrence’s Cabinet colleagues, Pam Beggs, has asserted that she (Ms Beggs) had warned Cabinet that it should not use Family Court matters for political matters, and also because Mrs Easton, as a lawyer, would have felt constrained from defending herself publicly because of the secrecy provisions of the Family Law Act. Dr Lawrence has stated that she did not know the details of the petition before it was tabled, however, two of her colleague say she knew of it before it was tabled and that it had been discussed in Cabinet. Dr Lawrence has been extensively grilled by the media and in Parliament and has stuck to her position.
She received, but did not need, help from the Prime Minister, Paul Keating. That “”help” came in an abusive, hypocritical and bullying form. He warned that no “”self-respecting” lawyer or judge would take the politically tainted job, yet Federal Labor has got judges in its time to do its political dirty work. The question of whether a Federal Minister should attend a state Royal commission is largely a red herring. For a start the commission is not touching on federal matter; the fact Dr Lawrence is now a Federal minister is merely fortuitous. Besides, the WA Inc Royal Commission questioned people from all levels of government.
That said, the inquiry is a political stunt. In the face of Dr Lawrence’s steadfast responses which have not been shaken, it is unlikely to take the matter much further than what we already have: a difference of recollections. A Royal Commission is a sledge hammer to crack a walnut that will only cause the legal profession to salivate. There is no allegation widespread criminality, corruption or serious malfeasance that prompted commissions like Stewart, Woodward, Costigan and Hope. At its very highest we have an allegation that a politician might have engineered a political stunt that went wrong and later washed her hands of it _ something that should be dealt with by the political process.