❓ Question on Notice regarding security failures leading to a prison escape and criticism of Supreme Court judges' use of video technology. The Minister defends the government's actions and accuses the opposition of hypocrisy regarding funding for court security upgrades.
AnsweredQoN 469Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the finding of the Hooker inquiry that two days before the great escape the presiding judge’s staff requested, but could not obtain, additional security from the Western Australia Police Service. That request was made in an attempt to respond to security concerns presented by the listed prisoners, nine of whom later escaped. I further refer to the finding relating to the use of videoconferencing in the Supreme Court; that is, there is only one video link and the judges had justifiable concerns about using video technology at status conferences. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Did you say “status”? Ms S.E. WALKER: Status conferences. The minister used the excuse. Is the minister trying to blame them? (1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Did you say “status”? Ms S.E. WALKER: Status conferences. The minister used the excuse. Is the minister trying to blame them? (1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Status conferences. The minister used the excuse. Is the minister trying to blame them? (1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons:
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
[See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Did you say “status”? Ms S.E. WALKER: Status conferences. The minister used the excuse. Is the minister trying to blame them? (1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Status conferences. The minister used the excuse. Is the minister trying to blame them? (1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(1) Will the minister explain why the Police Service failed to provide a Supreme Court judge with additional security when it was requested? (2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(2) Will the minister further explain why she criticised Supreme Court judges for not using video technology when the resources to enable the use of that technology were not available? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
I thank the member for Nedlands for that question. I am very pleased to respond. (1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(1) The state security unit responds when it can to assist in those circumstances. Protocols are in place for other persons to be approached to provide that support in circumstances in which the unit is unable to respond. The Hooker inquiry looked into those matters and made no adverse finding in that regard. If the member has a particular issue, I am more than happy to get the state security unit to provide her with a briefing on how it operates. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have again heard the furphy from the member for Nedlands that somehow I have been critical of the Chief Justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly pointed out that the presiding judge has responsibility for security within each courtroom. That is the way it works. I have received advice from the Department of Justice that judges are approached from time to time about particular offenders who will be presented in their courts, and security measures are suggested. Sometimes those measures are accepted and sometimes they are not. That is what I was referring to in the comment I made. (2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
(2) Videoconferencing facilities are available. As part of the upgrade of the Supreme Court by our Government, and following the security audit that was commenced in February this year and completed at the end of June, additional videoconferencing facilities will be put in place. That is something that our Government supports. Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Ms S.E. Walker: Why did you criticise them? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If the member for Nedlands wants to talk about criticism, I will talk about what the former Government did. Members opposite talk to me about accountability. How dare any one of them talk to me about accountability? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where are the cabinet documents of his Government? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not be accountable to the Parliament? That is the real question. How does the Leader of the Opposition have the hypocrisy to stand and ask for us to be accountable when we have provided all the documentation and opened the books and he will not do the same? The Opposition does not want to open its books because the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether he was part of a Cabinet that rejected funding proposals for the Supreme Court and the upgrade of security there. Will he tell us now? Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mr C.J. Barnett: We provided all the information to Mr Hooker. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the Leader of the Opposition tell the media yesterday that he could not recall whether he had knocked back funding or whether that matter had come before Cabinet? Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition will not say. He pretends that he cannot recall, but had he read the Hooker report he would know that on page 44 it states that his Government rejected putting any money in the budget for the security upgrade. We must ask why. Perhaps it is because of the attitude of the previous Government. I will table a letter from the former Attorney General, which outlines his views. The letter is headed “ CBD COURTS PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT SITE - PERSONS IN CUSTODY ” and is dated 13 October 2000. The Attorney General said in the letter - I have reviewed the report, “CBD Courts Project, Supreme Court Planning Study March 2000” and I am very supportive of the proposal. He was very supportive of it, but got no money for it. The letter continues - There is one matter however, which I would like to raise with you and that is the provision of a secure custodial area. My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons: The former Attorney General did not think a secure custodial area was required. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
My view is that a secure custodial area is not required in the proposed Supreme Court redevelopment for the following reasons:
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is because it was going to be a Court of Appeal. It is selective quoting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This will be interesting. The member for Kingsley should not worry, because I will be delighted to table the whole letter. She should not accuse me of selective quoting when I will table the lot. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The first thing the former Attorney General, Mr Peter Foss, said was - Most matters can now be dealt with via video link . . . The view of the Liberal Party in 2000 was that most matters could be dealt with by video link. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You blame Mr Justice Murray; your view. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, members opposite do not want to hear this. They are completely embarrassed. This letter was addressed to Hon Justice Kennedy, who is now retired. At the time he was Acting Chief Justice of Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the members for Kingsley and Nedlands to order. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: What date? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The letter is dated October 2000. I have already said that. If the Leader of the National Party had not been so busy interjecting, he might have heard me say that. The letter goes on to say - A purpose built secure custodial area in the proposed court facility within the Central Law Courts/Hay Irwin Street development will ensure that the highest level of security can be achieved. One central secure custodial area would also be more efficient to operate. There were no plans to improve security at the Supreme Court. In fact, the former Attorney General rejected any security improvements there. It gets worse. The letter states - If a secure custodial area is provided at the Supreme Court, then it is proposed that the sally port be rebuilt. Its location and size would, however, still detract from the aesthetics of the Supreme Court building. That was the position of the former Government and its Attorney General. The Attorney General was more concerned with aesthetics than with progressing a secure custodial area at the Supreme Court. Members opposite are not accountable. The Leader of the Opposition will not tell us how many times he sat in Cabinet, or the equivalent of its expenditure review committee meetings, and denied funding for the Supreme Court. That contrasts with what we have done in government; we have got on and done the job. I table the letter from the former Attorney General. [See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
[See paper No 2685.] Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Roe and Darling Range.
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.