❓ Opposition questions the Attorney General about the suitability of a fellow MP (member for Armadale) to serve as a Justice of the Peace, given her past driving convictions. The Attorney General defends the MP, stating that she declared her convictions and met the requirements at the time of her appointment.
AnsweredQoN 26Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE APPLICATION
I have already read the preamble about the debate in the House yesterday, which I hope is on the record. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the application for appointment as a justice of the peace states that persons who have a record of criminal offence or those who have a serious traffic conviction less than five years old are excluded from applying to become a justice of the peace? (2) Will the minister inform the House when the minister applied to become a justice of the peace and whether the minister’s driving convictions were declared on her application? (3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY
I have already read the preamble about the debate in the House yesterday, which I hope is on the record. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the application for appointment as a justice of the peace states that persons who have a record of criminal offence or those who have a serious traffic conviction less than five years old are excluded from applying to become a justice of the peace? (2) Will the minister inform the House when the minister applied to become a justice of the peace and whether the minister’s driving convictions were declared on her application? (3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the application for appointment as a justice of the peace states that persons who have a record of criminal offence or those who have a serious traffic conviction less than five years old are excluded from applying to become a justice of the peace? (2) Will the minister inform the House when the minister applied to become a justice of the peace and whether the minister’s driving convictions were declared on her application? (3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(2) Will the minister inform the House when the minister applied to become a justice of the peace and whether the minister’s driving convictions were declared on her application? (3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the application for appointment as a justice of the peace states that persons who have a record of criminal offence or those who have a serious traffic conviction less than five years old are excluded from applying to become a justice of the peace? (2) Will the minister inform the House when the minister applied to become a justice of the peace and whether the minister’s driving convictions were declared on her application? (3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(2) Will the minister inform the House when the minister applied to become a justice of the peace and whether the minister’s driving convictions were declared on her application? (3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(3) Given the minister’s three driving convictions for drink driving and speeding, will the Attorney General accept such low standards of community propriety from people serving as and applying to become justices of the peace? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
(1)-(3) The member for Armadale’s application to become a justice of the peace was made after she was elected to the East Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council, a position she commenced on 22 May 1993. The application was made in the second half of 1993 and was approved in late December 1993. The application form had two relevant provisions. The first was a question that asked whether the applicant had any convictions. Two boxes were provided to tick the answer either yes or no and the applicant ticked the relevant box. Underneath that a note stated that a check would be made of the criminal/traffic records subject to the consent of the applicant. A question on the consensual form asked whether the applicant consented to the Attorney General making such confidential inquiries as to the applicant’s character and suitability for appointment as the Attorney General may consider necessary. That form was signed by the member for Armadale who had ticked the box indicating that she had a conviction, as was required. It is clear that the member for Armadale disclosed the fact that she had a conviction as required on the form when she made that application in 1993. Yesterday, the member for Hillarys suggested that the member for Armadale had made her justice of the peace application in the 1980s; that was wrong. Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Johnson: I said that I was under the impression that she had made it in 1986. Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: The member for Hillarys suggested that his impression might have been correct. He also suggested that the member for Armadale did not declare her convictions; again, that is not correct. The member also suggested that the member for Armadale should have been removed as a justice of the peace. That is wrong for the reasons I will now explain. I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
I know that adjustment to life in opposition is difficult, particularly if one has had the benefits of ministerial staff to conduct research work and preparation. However, the test of the effectiveness of the Opposition is the rigour of its research and whether it can get its facts straight. On this occasion it is true to say that the member has been found wanting. Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mrs Edwardes: What about Wanneroo? Did you get your facts straight? I do not think so. Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the member for Kingsley. I will answer her question, do not worry about that. The person responsible for appointing justices of the peace in 1993 was none other than the member for Kingsley, who received an application from the member for Armadale declaring that she had a conviction. It was the member for Kingsley who then appointed the member for Armadale to be a justice of the peace. The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
The Ministry of Justice advised me that a five-year waiting period applies after a conviction has been recorded before the application to be appointed as a justice of the peace can be considered. The member for Armadale’s conviction was in 1986. She was appointed to Parliament in 1993, some seven years later, therefore, it fitted squarely within the policy of a five-year period after the conviction before the matter is considered. This is strictly in conformity with policy. The member for Kingsley was still in charge of justices of the peace at that time. The Ministry of Justice further advised me that a drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney General to cancel a JP’s commission. Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Johnson: There were two convictions, plus another one. Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: I am telling the House what the ministry has advised me. A drink-driving conviction in itself would not result in a recommendation for the cancellation of a JP’s commission. I presume that is the reason the member for Kingsley, when she was responsible for the administration of this area, quite properly took no action in 1994 when this matter occurred. I cannot speak for her, but I presume that was the reason she took no action at that time. It is a bit rich to now come into this Parliament, some seven years later, and criticise the new Government when the coalition Government administered the policy for the past eight years and it quite rightly took no action at that time. The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
The Ministry of Justice has also advised me that the loss of a licence due to the accumulation of demerit points, which is the issue that has brought this matter to a head during the course of this year, would not result in a justice of the peace losing his or her commission. When one thinks about it, that is right. In other words, the member for Armadale’s remaining as a JP is perfectly in accordance with established policy, which the coalition Government administered for the past eight years. Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Barnett interjected. Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: Would the Leader of the Opposition just be quiet. Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr Cowan: Would demerit points for registering 0.05 still hold? Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
Mr McGINTY: I have not received any advice on that. I will undertake to obtain that advice for the member for Merredin. I was asked yesterday whether the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was a fit and proper person to hold a commission as a justice of the peace, and I answered with an unequivocal yes. The real question is what is the Opposition’s standard. Should traffic convictions result in someone losing his or her commission as a justice of the peace? It never has been the case. I do not think it should be, and I am sure that in the future it never will be. The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
The SPEAKER: That answer was extensive, and it was one that everyone in this place wanted to hear. Because of the length of it, I will allow time for sufficient questions today, which will take us over the normal half-hour limit.
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.