A parliamentary committee has recommended a WA politician accused of child sex offences be suspended from parliament for the rest of the year.
Former Nationals MP James Hayward is awaiting trial, having been charged with abusing an eight-year-old girl in the state's south-west in November, 2021.
He has pleaded not guilty to four charges, including three counts of indecent dealing and one count of procuring, encouraging or inciting a child under 13 to do an indecent act.
In May, he made an application to have his bail altered so he could attend a medicinal cannabis symposium, saying he would have to resign from a committee he was a member of if he was not able to.
Hayward brought parliament into 'contempt and ridicule'
Parliament's powerful Privileges and Procedures Committee found that was an "incorrect statement", and as a result Mr Hayward had brought the Legislative Council into "contempt and ridicule".
In a statement, Mr Hayward said he "vehemently reject[s] the findings and recommendations" of the committee.
A decision on whether to adopt three recommendations, including that he be suspended from parliament until the end of 2022, is expected to be debated later this week.
The committee's investigation centred around an affidavit Mr Hayward swore in support of the application to alter his bail.
The application was successful, and Magistrate Heidi Watson varied his bail conditions so Mr Hayward did not have to check in with the Australind Police Station for the length of the conference.
But when Parliament sat the next month, Leader of the House, Sue Ellery, questioned whether Mr Hayward provided false information to the court, and if he did, whether that amounted to contempt of parliament.
"It is not the case that inability to attend a particular committee trip deems any member unable to fulfil their duties," she said at the time.
As a result, Mr Hayward's actions were referred to the Procedures and Privileges Committee for further investigation.
The committee made three findings, including that Mr Hayward "was aware there was no rule or procedure of the Legislative Council" that would have required him to resign if he was unable to travel to Queensland.
It also found Mr Hayward used his position as a member of the cannabis and hemp committee to "gain a benefit not available to others" and that "knowingly misrepresenting" the practices and rules of the Legislative Council amounted to contempt.
"The PPC was satisfied that Hon James Hayward had an understanding of the rules relating to committee membership, and was aware at the time as a result of advice from multiple sources that it was neither mandatory nor expected that members of a committee must travel in the event that the committee resolves to gather information elsewhere," the report said.
"There was no reasonable excuse for the incorrect statement in Hon James Hayward's sworn affidavit."
The report also notes Mr Hayward's actions led to a "breakdown in trust and the working relationship" of the cannabis and hemp committee, which was "in part" addressed by his resignation from the group.
It also made clear the committee was not considering the offences Mr Hayward has been charged with, and "should in no way be seen as expressing an expectation to the courts that they should treat members of parliament in any particular way".
The report references evidence Mr Hayward gave to the committee, including that he "felt compelled to resign from the committee if I was not permitted to travel because of the expectations placed upon me by members".
But the committee found Mr Hayward "alone formed the view that he would have to resign if he was unable to travel", and that it was not a "reasonable belief … particularly where there were other opportunities available for him to participate in the conference virtually".
'I acted in good faith': Hayward
Mr Hayward said he had "consistently acted in good faith" according to advice from parliamentary officials and legal representatives.
"I told the court I would have to resign if I were not able to travel to Queensland to attend a conference," he said.
"These words were correct and carefully chosen as not to disclose the deliberations of the committee.
"I had good reasons for including this in my affidavit, but I am unable to disclose the pertinent facts which support my position as I would be in breach of parliamentary privilege."
Mr Hayward also called on the committee to publicly release "all documents" relating to the matter in the interests of "transparency, fairness, integrity and natural justice".
