❓ Question regarding security at the Supreme Court and alleged misrepresentation by the Minister of Justice. The Minister apologises for any misunderstanding and outlines actions taken to address security concerns.
AnsweredQoN 455Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the letter of Chief Justice David Malcolm of 25 March 2004 to the Director General of the Department of Justice, a copy of which was sent to her, which raises extremely serious concerns about the security arrangements of the Supreme Court and states that priority should be given to the installation of airport-style security as a matter of some urgency. (1) In light of the fact that the Chief Justice had raised such serious security concerns directly with the minister, why did she state in her press conference of 12 June that from time to time the Department of Justice proposes security measures to the Chief Justice and on a number of occasions those requests have been rejected? (2) Will the minister concede that despite receiving clear evidence to the contrary, she cast a serious and false aspersion on the most senior judicial officer in the State without verifying her information? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
(1) In light of the fact that the Chief Justice had raised such serious security concerns directly with the minister, why did she state in her press conference of 12 June that from time to time the Department of Justice proposes security measures to the Chief Justice and on a number of occasions those requests have been rejected? (2) Will the minister concede that despite receiving clear evidence to the contrary, she cast a serious and false aspersion on the most senior judicial officer in the State without verifying her information? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
(2) Will the minister concede that despite receiving clear evidence to the contrary, she cast a serious and false aspersion on the most senior judicial officer in the State without verifying her information? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
(1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments.
During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments.
The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
[See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
(1) In light of the fact that the Chief Justice had raised such serious security concerns directly with the minister, why did she state in her press conference of 12 June that from time to time the Department of Justice proposes security measures to the Chief Justice and on a number of occasions those requests have been rejected? (2) Will the minister concede that despite receiving clear evidence to the contrary, she cast a serious and false aspersion on the most senior judicial officer in the State without verifying her information? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
(2) Will the minister concede that despite receiving clear evidence to the contrary, she cast a serious and false aspersion on the most senior judicial officer in the State without verifying her information? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
(1)-(2) Sadly it seems that the member for Nedlands has confused two quite separate issues. I am very happy to go through both of them in some detail. First, the matter about which she attempted to move a motion was any aspersion that has been cast on the Chief Justice. That was never my intention. In fact, I put out a press release that day that was in no way directed at the Chief Justice or, indeed, any other judge. I was asked about the security within the Supreme Court building. I said that that was a matter for the judges and words to the effect that from time to time these matters were raised and they were not always acceded to. The fact of the matter is that I have already said publicly on radio this morning that it is my intention to apologise to the Chief Justice for any misunderstanding that occurred. That was not a press statement issued by me; it was a comment made in answer to a question. I have absolutely no concern about wholeheartedly apologising to the Chief Justice. In fact, today I have written to the Chief Justice and I am happy to table that letter, which states - Dear Chief Justice I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments. Another issue that the member for Nedlands chose to throw into the mix as though it were somehow related was the article on the front page of today’s newspaper. The article referred to correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. The issues raised in that correspondence highlighted the concerns of the Chief Justice about the level of security for judges, staff and members of the public at the Supreme Court. In raising those concerns, the Chief Justice requested that a review of the security arrangements, including an assessment of the risk of remote detonation bombing and/or suicidal bombing, be conducted. Clearly, these are matters in which terrorists would be involved. In that letter, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the risk of a vehicle loaded with explosives gaining access to the court, the risk of an armed or dangerous spectator gaining access to the building or the courtrooms in particular and the security of the vehicles of judges and registrars. Suggestions that were made by the Chief Justice to address these concerns included airport-style security systems at public entrances to the court, as the member for Nedlands has referred to, and the surveillance of individuals by way of an electronic wand. Ms S.E. Walker: Why didn’t you do anything? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
I refer to the recent escape from the Supreme Court that occurred on 10 June 2004 and the subsequent Hooker Inquiry into that incident. During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments.
During the media coverage of the escape, I referred to the use of increased security measures on prisoners who appear in the Supreme Court. I indicated in response to questions from the media that from time to time the Department of Justice had proposed security measures to you and that on a number of occasions those requests had been rejected. The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments.
The Hooker Inquiry has made it clear that you reject these assertions and I wholeheartedly apologise for any incorrect assertion that I have made. I sincerely regret any confusion caused by my comments.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands has interjected by asking why I did nothing. How wrong can the member for Nedlands be? She has made a number of very incorrect assertions, and this is just one of them. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: At that time the Department of Justice had already commissioned a review, which began in February 2004. The review was completed in July 2004. The review was conducted with input from both state security and the Sheriff’s Office. Those initiatives have now been incorporated into the current development of our Government’s new $100 million court complex. Airport-style security will be introduced while planning for structural work and walk-through security checking and X-raying of bags will commence immediately. In addition, security expertise will be boosted and the role of the Sheriff’s Office will be reviewed with a view to managing security in a court setting. The letter from the Chief Justice to the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the Supreme Court custody area. It clearly related to the Chief Justice’s concerns about terrorist-style incidents. These concerns were being dealt with separately through a review that began in February, prior to the Chief Justice writing to the director general. I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
I will now table the correspondence surrounding this issue so that everyone can be clear on it. I table for the benefit of the House a letter dated 25 March 2004 from Hon David K. Malcolm, AC to Mr Alan Piper. I also table the response from Mr Alan Piper, dated 22 April 2004, in which he detailed the actions that were being taken in response to that correspondence. It is simply not true for the member for Nedlands to assert that nothing occurred with the letter that had been sent by the Chief Justice. It is also quite misleading at the very least for her to suggest that that letter had anything to do with the custody area. [See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
[See papers Nos 2682 and 2683.]
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.