❓ Opposition Leader Barnett questions Premier Gallop regarding the Justice Minister's comments about the Chief Justice and court security upgrades following an escape. Gallop defends the Minister, citing the context of the debate and the Hooker report.
AnsweredQoN 457Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Premier to part 1 of the ministerial code of conduct, which states - Being a Minister of the Crown demands the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their public duties and functions. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I know members think it is very funny to make comments, but the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet asking a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I ask the Premier - (1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
The SPEAKER: I know members think it is very funny to make comments, but the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet asking a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I ask the Premier - (1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I ask the Premier - (1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
The SPEAKER: I know members think it is very funny to make comments, but the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet asking a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I ask the Premier - (1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I ask the Premier - (1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(1) Given the Minister for Justice’s failure to verify her comments on 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court, will the Premier admit that his minister made a serious assertion against the Chief Justice with little regard for the facts or the truth? (2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(2) As such, does the Premier concede that the minister has failed to meet his much publicised standards of honesty and diligence in his ministerial code? (3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(3) What measure will the Premier take to sanction the minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
(1)-(3) I take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred - Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, answer the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will answer the question, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am entitled to answer the question as I wish. I want to take all members of the House back to the debate that occurred on the day of and the day after the escape from the Supreme Court cells in Perth. There was a very serious incident. Naturally, there was tremendous interest from the community in what had happened. As always happens with incidents such as this, the debate quickly broadened from the actual issue of why the prisoners escaped and how they escaped. A number of matters were put on the table by the media by way of their questions. One of them was: what is the relationship between the prison system and the court system regarding hearings of the sort that those prisoners were going to attend? Members will recall that a good discussion went on about videoconferencing. Secondly, there was a quite appropriate set of questions about the security in the Supreme Court cells, how they were operated, who operated them - of course, Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd operated them - whether they were being operated properly and what caused the break-out to occur. Thirdly, naturally, the issue arose about what happens in the court itself with security. There was some discussion about the fact that in Western Australian courts restraints are not used within the courts, as opposed to some other courts. The debate quickly broadened to discuss transport relationships between the prison system and the courts, whether videoconferencing should be used, what happened in the cells that day and, finally, what happens in the court itself when a prisoner or an accused goes there for a hearing. We know that in Australia, and indeed in Western Australia, we have different systems from many other parts of the world. That is the context in which the Minister for Police discussed this matter on that day. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You make it up as you go. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not making it up as I go - not at all. That is the matter that was raised. I will take this one step further. I go to the Hooker report. I find it very interesting that no-one seems to be talking about the Hooker report. However, the Hooker report deals with the very issue of the relationship between the courts and security. On page 127, Mr Hooker stated - Certain material informally presented to the Inquiry clearly evidenced a strongly held views of the judiciary against allowing visible use of restraints in criminal courts. Some persons, however, queried whether for appearances where there is no jury present, the accepted practice needs to be so entrenched. Moreover, the Inquiry heard of the existence of an apparently modern design whereby a prisoner wears a single leg band which is concealed under the clothing, displaying no outward impression of restraint. Provisional impressions about the desirability of using such restraints were very positive. The Inquiry is of the view that any design which can, simultaneously, accommodate the concerns of the judiciary and provide practical assistance in the custody of prisoners who carry a heightened security risk ought be carefully considered. That is the very issue that the minister raised in that discussion with the media on that day. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was placed on was that the minister was saying that the Chief Justice had no concern whatsoever with the security of the courts. Of course, that is not true, and the minister has unreservedly apologised for that interpretation of what happened. The Minister for Justice has carried out her duties properly. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice was appraised of the fact from the Hooker inquiry that a particular interpretation had been placed upon her comments on that day, she apologised unreservedly. That is a minister doing her job. That is a minister raising an important issue on behalf of the public. What is the Opposition’s view on the use of restraints in the courts? The Opposition has no view on the subject. Mr Hooker has a view. The Government has a view, and we expressed that view yesterday. We would like the judiciary to reconsider its position on this issue. It is possible to have concealed restraints in the courts. That was the issue. In respect of the broader interpretation that was made, the minister has quite appropriately apologised to the Chief Justice. The ministerial code of conduct has not been breached in this case.
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.