❓ Mr McGrath asks the Minister for Education about an alleged incident at South Perth Primary School. The Minister provides a detailed account, refuting claims made by another MP and highlighting inconsistencies in the mother's report.
AnsweredQoN 210Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SOUTH PERTH PRIMARY SCHOOL — ALLEGED INCIDENT
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I have given the call to the member for South Perth. I want to hear his question. I formally call you for the first time. Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I have given the call to the member for South Perth. I want to hear his question. I formally call you for the first time. Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE
AnswerView source ↗
This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I have given the call to the member for South Perth. I want to hear his question. I formally call you for the first time. Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I have given the call to the member for South Perth. I want to hear his question. I formally call you for the first time. Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I have given the call to the member for South Perth. I want to hear his question. I formally call you for the first time. Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I have given the call to the member for South Perth. I want to hear his question. I formally call you for the first time. Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr J.E. McGRATH : Yesterday the member for Midland made some commentary on an alleged incident that occurred last Friday at the South Perth Primary School, which is in my electorate. Can the minister please provide accurate information about that alleged incident? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
This issue was raised in question time yesterday. Allegations were made by the member for Midland, and I undertook to get an urgent briefing on the matter. The facts of this case are indeed quite different from those portrayed by the member for Midland, and I am dismayed that she used parliamentary privilege to make the accusations that she did. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to read through some facts about the matter. What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
What I can tell the house is this: the mother of a three-year-old boy alleged that her son had been approached by a male person on the grounds of the school at 3.45 pm last Friday. The mother was some distance away and did not witness the alleged incident. This was three-quarters of an hour after the school had been dismissed. The mother described the incident to the principal at 4.15 pm, 30 minutes after the alleged event had taken place. The principal was working after hours at the school. The principal was assured by the mother that her son had not been injured. She was unable to provide a description of the alleged offender, other than to report that another parent had seen a male in a blue jacket running down a laneway beside the school. The principal recommended that the police should be informed. She decided to inform the police herself and attended the police station that afternoon. The mother has been kept informed of police actions to address the matter. The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The principal and deputy principal walked around the school grounds and perimeter on Friday afternoon, including the laneway and the playground area, to see whether they could see anyone suspicious. No-one was observed. At five o’clock on Friday afternoon the principal informed the Manager, Operations, Canning District Education Office. No assistance was requested. The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The mother reported the incident to the police late in the afternoon on Friday, 6 March. A police officer informed the mother that they would engage an early childhood expert to take a statement from the child on Monday, 9 March. The interview took place on Monday as scheduled. During the interview no offence was disclosed, and the child stated that he was approached by a male person who called him stupid and may have said that he was a naughty boy. After this the child ran off to his mother. On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
On Wednesday, 11 March, the Director Schools, Canning District Education Office, was informed by the police officer that an officer from the Department for Child Protection interviewed the child on Monday and determined that there was no evidence that the child was touched, and as a result the police have linked no offence in this matter. On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
On the evening of Friday, 6 March, the principal received an email from the Kensington police. The email informed the principal of information contained in the mother’s statement and that an inquiry had been commenced. In the response, the principal requested a description of the alleged offender, which was provided. The description was provided with the caveat that the description was provided by the mother as a “best possible description a three-year-old can make”. At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
At 8.45 am on Monday, 9 March, the mother approached the school gardener in his shed and stated that the alleged incident had occurred in the shed. The gardener replied that he was not at work on Friday and that the shed was locked all day and a key was required to open it. He confirmed that the shed was locked on Monday morning when he arrived at work. The mother then located the principal and stated that her son had said the incident had occurred in the gardener’s shed. The mother accompanied the principal to meet the gardener, who again confirmed that the shed had been locked on Friday and that he had not been at work. South Perth Primary School forwarded a critical incident report on Monday, 9 March, at 9.44 am. Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Yesterday a friend of the parent approach the media, concerned that the school had not sent a note to all parents informing them of the alleged incident. Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Clearly, the facts related to the incident have been distorted. The fact that the member for Midland came into this house yesterday claiming that an attempted abduction had taken place was irresponsible and disturbing, given that she apparently did not bother to check the facts of the matter. It is even more disturbing given that she is a former Minister for Police. She has unnecessarily upset parents and used the safety of children as a political football. I think this is reprehensible. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Chris Dawson, has advised that there is insufficient detail to call this an attempted abduction and that what was raised in Parliament did not equate with the facts. South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
South Perth Primary School has an active stranger danger program. Parents and the school community were informed by letter as recently as 16 February about child safety issues. Teachers discussed stranger danger with students in their classes on Monday, 9 March, after the alleged incident. Decisions about providing information to parents are taken at the school and local level. In this case, the principal decided on Monday not to send a letter to parents because of doubts about what was an unverified allegation. It is noteworthy that the sergeant in charge of the inquiry has stated that the principal acted immediately and appropriately. I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
I do not resile from the seriousness of any allegation regarding the safety of children. But these matters need to be dealt with free from hysteria and with the full facts in front of us. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I seek your advice and ruling on two issues, Mr Speaker. First of all, the minister read the entirety of that answer, and I seek your ruling as to whether that is appropriate in question time, considering your advice to our members of the house that they are not allowed to read a supplementary question. Given that advice, I suggest that the reading of an entire answer, which went for approximately five minutes, would infringe that ruling. Secondly, I ask the minister to table what appeared to me to be an official document. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to that point of order, I say to the member that I do not believe the Minister for Education has breached standing orders. What she did was read a report of what took place for the benefit of the house. I think that is something that everybody would welcome. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to the point of order, it is true that people should not read material, but this is an exceptional circumstance. A member of this Parliament alleged that there had been an attempted abduction of a child. That was clearly an erroneous allegation to make and a dangerous allegation to make. Mr Speaker — Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Point of order, Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : The Premier is speaking to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition can make his point of order when the Premier has concluded. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I say that in these circumstances it was in the public interest and in the parliamentary interest that a factual account be given and that the facts be absolutely in the correct sequence. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister for Education should correct a reckless and erroneous allegation from the member opposite, and correct the public record. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. If members want to continue with question time today, I suggest that we hear the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is an abuse of the system of taking a point of order for the Premier to use that point of order to make an attack on another member. That is an abuse, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that particular matter. The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : I am going to make a ruling on the initial point of order made by the member for Rockingham. It concerned me, member for Rockingham, that the information that was being provided by the Minister for Education was being read verbatim. It was my intention at the conclusion of that answer to make some comments along those lines. I appreciate that perhaps the minister in this instance may have wanted to lay out facts entirely in a sequence and in chronological order. It would also be my intention, member for Rockingham, to ask the minister to table that document. I hope that that will clarify anything that has since come from the answer to that question, because I think it is probably in everybody’s interest in this place. I note the interest in this question in particular. It would be to the benefit of all of us to have the document tabled, if it is in fact an official document, and I ask the minister to do that or to give an explanation. Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Dr E. CONSTABLE : If I might comment, this is not an official document; these are my notes. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : Let me clarify what I am talking to the minister about. In response to the member for Rockingham, I have indicated that if it is an official document, I would like it tabled. Given that I have heard that they are the minister’s notes, I suggest to the minister that reading an entire speech is not appropriate when answering a question. However, given the circumstances in this instance, I presume that she wanted to get the details and individuals in chronological order and in sequence. I understand that, and I ask other members in this place also to understand that. I urge the minister, if she is asked questions in future, that the answer not be read verbatim from her notes. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I wonder if I might seek your ruling on the point of order that I raised. I think all members in this place have an interest in the procedure for taking a point of order so that it does not degenerate into an opportunity for people to attack each other in the house. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to now or later make a ruling on that matter. The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
The SPEAKER : I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a ruling later.
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.