❓ Opposition questions Premier about Minister Punch's suitability for Child Protection portfolio following a historical child abuse case. Premier defends Minister Punch, highlighting his past experience and the changes in child protection policies.
AnsweredQoN 468Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Child protection—Hon Don Punch
468. Mr Basil Zempilas to
the Premier:
I refer to the
judgement delivered on 9 September 2025 in DB v
the State of Western Australia , which awarded the plaintiff almost $3 million
in damages for the child sexual abuse he suffered while he was a ward of the
state.
(1) Does the Premier commit to never appointing
Minister Punch as the Minister for Child Protection or Acting Minister for
Child—
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members!
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members! Thank you. We have a point of
order.
Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.
The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition! Attorney
General.
Point of order
Dr Tony Buti: Mr Speaker, I ask you to look at
standing order 77(2)—if I remember correctly, it is footnote 42—about
seeking personal opinions from a minister about a matter—
Several members
interjected.
Dr Tony Buti: It is a point of order.
The Speaker: Yes, it is a point of order.
Dr Tony Buti: Further, a legal opinion is not to be
asked for. Legal and personal opinions about a matter should not be asked in
questions.
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members!
Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson interjected.
The Speaker: Minister!
I will take some advice on this.
Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson interjected.
The Speaker: Minister—thank you. I am not
going to uphold that point of order. However, I will say that if the Leader of
the Opposition is implying that something illegal or immoral has happened in
the past, he can do so by way of a substantive motion. This is not the place to
do those things. The member can reframe that question.
Questions without notice resumed
Mr Basil Zempilas: My question is to the Premier.
(1) Does the Premier commit to never appointing
Minister Punch as the Minister for Child Protection or Acting Minister for
Child Protection?
(2) While Minister Punch remains in cabinet, will
the Premier ensure that he is never involved in any decision-making or
discussions on child protection matters in cabinet?
468. Mr Basil Zempilas to
the Premier:
I refer to the
judgement delivered on 9 September 2025 in DB v
the State of Western Australia , which awarded the plaintiff almost $3 million
in damages for the child sexual abuse he suffered while he was a ward of the
state.
(1) Does the Premier commit to never appointing
Minister Punch as the Minister for Child Protection or Acting Minister for
Child—
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members!
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members! Thank you. We have a point of
order.
Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.
The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition! Attorney
General.
Point of order
Dr Tony Buti: Mr Speaker, I ask you to look at
standing order 77(2)—if I remember correctly, it is footnote 42—about
seeking personal opinions from a minister about a matter—
Several members
interjected.
Dr Tony Buti: It is a point of order.
The Speaker: Yes, it is a point of order.
Dr Tony Buti: Further, a legal opinion is not to be
asked for. Legal and personal opinions about a matter should not be asked in
questions.
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members!
Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson interjected.
The Speaker: Minister!
I will take some advice on this.
Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson interjected.
The Speaker: Minister—thank you. I am not
going to uphold that point of order. However, I will say that if the Leader of
the Opposition is implying that something illegal or immoral has happened in
the past, he can do so by way of a substantive motion. This is not the place to
do those things. The member can reframe that question.
Questions without notice resumed
Mr Basil Zempilas: My question is to the Premier.
(1) Does the Premier commit to never appointing
Minister Punch as the Minister for Child Protection or Acting Minister for
Child Protection?
(2) While Minister Punch remains in cabinet, will
the Premier ensure that he is never involved in any decision-making or
discussions on child protection matters in cabinet?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) As a member of Parliament and a
member of the community, I think we all acknowledge the bravery of any young
victim who comes forward in the face of particularly heinous circumstances—in
this case, abuse by a member of that family. We acknowledge the bravery of that
member of the community for coming forward and thank him for continuing to hold
up a mirror to our society. We can always do better, Mr Speaker.
This gentleman was able to come
forward in a court of law because of the changes that we made to the limitation
period for historic sex abuse claims. We made that change in 2018 so that
victims like this gentleman could pursue compensation.
It is important that we put
these matters on the record. First, Minister Punch was never called as a
witness at the trial—never called. He attended a single case conference
in an acting capacity nearly 40 years ago. No decisions were made at this
single preliminary conference. Let us be clear about this. Forty years ago, the
member in question attended a single preliminary conference in an acting role
within the department. The minister was not involved in subsequent decisions
regarding the placement of Mr Barber. I repeat—was not involved in
subsequent decisions regarding the placement of Mr Barber. As the court found,
the horrific circumstances detailed in the case came as a result of the
procedures and policies of the Department of Child Protection at the time and,
ultimately, decisions made by the director general. These policies included the
goal of family reunification, which was a central tenet and priority for the
department at the time. This reflected the way that the government worked at
the time. It does not reflect today's victim-centred approach. As I said, this
was 40 years ago. The world and the department have changed significantly in
that time.
Minister Punch came to Western
Australia as a troubled youth at the age of 14 from the United Kingdom to live
with extended family in this country. Following this time of growing up in the South
West of Western Australia, he went on to study and became a social worker. He
went on to become a proud member of our public sector and a leader in our
public sector. There is no-one else in this chamber, potentially, who has more
understanding about the troubles of growing up in troubled families than
Minister Punch. The insinuation comes as a direct quote from Hon Nick Goiran's question
in the other place yesterday. That says a lot about the motives going on here.
Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.
The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr Roger Cook: I find the insinuation fundamentally
insulting and offensive, and I proudly stand by Minister Punch and the
incredible role he is playing in serving the people of Western Australia.
The Speaker: Members, that concludes question time.
member of the community, I think we all acknowledge the bravery of any young
victim who comes forward in the face of particularly heinous circumstances—in
this case, abuse by a member of that family. We acknowledge the bravery of that
member of the community for coming forward and thank him for continuing to hold
up a mirror to our society. We can always do better, Mr Speaker.
This gentleman was able to come
forward in a court of law because of the changes that we made to the limitation
period for historic sex abuse claims. We made that change in 2018 so that
victims like this gentleman could pursue compensation.
It is important that we put
these matters on the record. First, Minister Punch was never called as a
witness at the trial—never called. He attended a single case conference
in an acting capacity nearly 40 years ago. No decisions were made at this
single preliminary conference. Let us be clear about this. Forty years ago, the
member in question attended a single preliminary conference in an acting role
within the department. The minister was not involved in subsequent decisions
regarding the placement of Mr Barber. I repeat—was not involved in
subsequent decisions regarding the placement of Mr Barber. As the court found,
the horrific circumstances detailed in the case came as a result of the
procedures and policies of the Department of Child Protection at the time and,
ultimately, decisions made by the director general. These policies included the
goal of family reunification, which was a central tenet and priority for the
department at the time. This reflected the way that the government worked at
the time. It does not reflect today's victim-centred approach. As I said, this
was 40 years ago. The world and the department have changed significantly in
that time.
Minister Punch came to Western
Australia as a troubled youth at the age of 14 from the United Kingdom to live
with extended family in this country. Following this time of growing up in the South
West of Western Australia, he went on to study and became a social worker. He
went on to become a proud member of our public sector and a leader in our
public sector. There is no-one else in this chamber, potentially, who has more
understanding about the troubles of growing up in troubled families than
Minister Punch. The insinuation comes as a direct quote from Hon Nick Goiran's question
in the other place yesterday. That says a lot about the motives going on here.
Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.
The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr Roger Cook: I find the insinuation fundamentally
insulting and offensive, and I proudly stand by Minister Punch and the
incredible role he is playing in serving the people of Western Australia.
The Speaker: Members, that concludes question time.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.