❓ Question regarding the Minister's rejection of a Royal Commission into King Edward Memorial Hospital, despite concerns raised by the inquirer, Mr. Douglas. The Minister defends the decision, citing advice from the Solicitor General and Cabinet's support.
AnsweredQoN 217Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s inquiry into King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and the expressed opinions of the inquirer, Mr Douglas, that - (a) serious concerns are held about the provision of services at King Edward; (b) the statutory provisions may be inadequate and are perceived to be inadequate; and (c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY
AnswerView source ↗
(1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(a) serious concerns are held about the provision of services at King Edward; (b) the statutory provisions may be inadequate and are perceived to be inadequate; and (c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(b) the statutory provisions may be inadequate and are perceived to be inadequate; and (c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
(a) serious concerns are held about the provision of services at King Edward; (b) the statutory provisions may be inadequate and are perceived to be inadequate; and (c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(b) the statutory provisions may be inadequate and are perceived to be inadequate; and (c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(c) the absence of the appropriate statutory protection has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the conduct and actions of this inquiry. Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
Given those concerns, I ask - (1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(1) Why did the minister reject the legal opinion of Mr Douglas of 25 August to establish a royal commission? (2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(2) Is this, in effect, a statement that the minister does not trust Mr Douglas' legal acumen and judgment? Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
Mr DAY replied: (1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
(1) - (2) It is not a matter of expressing any view about Mr Douglas' legal judgment. I have full confidence in the way he is conducting the inquiry. Now that this matter has been resolved, he and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be able to get on with the job. The Government did not take up either of the two alternatives which were suggested by the inquiry to deal with the issues; that is, either to change the legislation - particularly the relevant sections of the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act and the Health Services (Quality Improvement) Act - or to establish the inquiry as a royal commission. These matters were extensively discussed by Cabinet and the decision was determined by a cabinet decision. Cabinet took into account the advice that was provided by the Solicitor General of Western Australia and which was supported by the Attorney General. I made public last week a summary of the Solicitor General’s clear advice why it was not necessary to either establish the inquiry as a royal commission or to change the legislation, as was being suggested by the inquiry. The reason is very simple: The Solicitor General gave the Government very clear advice that it was not necessary to make the changes that were being suggested. That position was also supported by the Attorney General and accepted by Cabinet. In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended. [See papers Nos 315 to 318.]
In his response to the Government, the letter from Mr Douglas dated 4 October 2000 stated - In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
In reaching this conclusion, the Inquiry members are satisfied that, despite the doubts and uncertainties under its existing legislative framework, the Inquiry can implement measures that will enable it, in appropriate circumstances, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to it by restricting or preventing the publication of that information. I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
I think that makes the issue very clear and indicates that Mr Douglas and the other two members of the inquiry panel will be getting on with the job and that they will be able to do the job effectively and thoroughly - as they need to - in the interests of the women of Western Australia. I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
I take the opportunity to table the interim report of the inquiry, which I made public last week; a copy of the Solicitor General's advice; the letter of response from the chairman of the inquiry; and a copy of the terms of reference of the inquiry, as amended.
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.