The current dilemma confronting your government is not some trivial political inconvenience to be overcome by the passage of time and clever spin doctoring. One of the most senior office holders of your government resigned at a crucial time and government property he used was damaged in circumstances that have yet to be publicly detailed. As angry as it makes you, the line of questioning by the opposition and media over this is perfectly legitimate. It is a simple and indisputable right for the public to know who knew what and when they knew it. For governments, there is no higher interest than the public interest and that was made perfectly clear in the WA Inc. Royal Commission, which said: "Both the democratic and the trust principles to which we referred in Chapter 1, if they are to have real meaning in this state, demand that government be conducted openly. "They require that the public be informed of the actions and purposes of government, not because the government considers it expedient for the public to know, but because the public has a right to know.

"Openness in government is the indispensable prerequisite to accountability to the public. (WA INC RC Report Part II Chapter 2 at 2.1.3)." Premier, getting angry because it is your mate involved is understandable, but not acceptable. We understand that these issues are difficult and come with a high personal and political cost but perversely, when the public becomes convinced governments are covering things up the political damage always gets worse. There are matters that the police should investigate but there should be no information flow to the government or any minister while this is underway. The only time the government should hear from police is if any charges are laid. But the wider unaddressed question is who knew what and when, and what actions were prompted by that prior knowledge? These are questions that need answering.

Premier, you were with Max Trenorden, Liz Constable and myself in November 2006 when we called for the establishment of a Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. Surely you understood what it all meant? The reason for asking is because the current circumstances are precisely what we were talking about. How could you not know that? An Independent Standards Commissioner could comprehensively deal with these matters leaving little room for political grandstanding.

Not only would the public interest be better served by this process, there is no way it could make things any worse for your government than they are already. You see Premier, after so many years at the helm of the state, your inaction on this front has contributed to your current political dilemma. Had you established a body similar to the one in Westminster this matter would have been dealt with dispassionately and ethically and the political flack you are experiencing would be significantly reduced. Follow WAtoday on Twitter @WAtoday