❓ WA Premier expresses concerns over the Commonwealth's Defence Legislation Amendment Bill, fearing it bypasses states on critical issues and weakens their position in the Federation, particularly regarding domestic security and consultation processes.
AnsweredQoN 69Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Western Australia and other States have expressed concerns over the Commonwealth's Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. Could the Premier inform the House of those concerns and if there have been any developments on this important issue? Mr COURT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
Until recently, there has not been a lot of comment on the legislation. The Bill has been drafted and the position put forward by the Federal Government is - with the Sydney Olympic Games fast approaching - that it needs additional powers to help with security. The State Government has expressed a number of concerns and has made a submission to a senate inquiry on the matter stating that it was not deemed necessary to instigate some of the proposed changes. I believe it is a way by which the Commonwealth can bypass the States on a very critical issue. It is clear in section 119 of the Constitution that the Commonwealth, when asked, must protect the States against domestic violence. It is accepted that the assistance should be in the form of the defence force. The Bill does not identify what forms of assistance will be given. It may be that the Federal Police enter a State without consultation. Until now, procedures have involved full consultation with the States before action is taken. Under the new arrangements it could be that the States will be the last to know if the defence force is to be called out. It has always been the case that the States were part of the decision-making process. The New South Wales Government believes the changes are not necessary. It is concerned that it may lead to conflict between state and federal police services if there has not been informed consultation on the need for intervention. I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
I do not often agree with Senator Bob Brown but he believes there should be state involvement in matters of intervention - as there has always been. I see it as yet another weakening of the position of the States in the Federation. I do not believe it is necessary for the security of the Olympic Games. The Western Australian Government strongly opposes the amendments.
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.