❓ Mr. Katsambanis questions the Premier regarding media gagging in relation to the Bennett Brook Disability Justice Centre. The Premier defends his actions, citing existing legislation and accusing the previous government of similar practices.
AnsweredQoN 574Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BENNETT BROOK DISABILITY
JUSTICE CENTRE — SUPREME COURT INJUNCTION
574. Mr P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question.
Does the Premier accept that the media is an important accountability
institution in our society, or does he continue to consider his gagging of the
media to be just a big joke?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Swan
Hills, I call you to order for the first time.
JUSTICE CENTRE — SUPREME COURT INJUNCTION
574. Mr P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question.
Does the Premier accept that the media is an important accountability
institution in our society, or does he continue to consider his gagging of the
media to be just a big joke?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Swan
Hills, I call you to order for the first time.
AnswerView source ↗
Of course I have high regard for the
media in this state and I am very friendly with many people in the media. I interact
with them on a daily basis and, indeed, a number of my staff are former members
of the media, so I have a great deal of respect for the role that is played by
the media in our community. A free press is very important to the future of
democracy in Western Australia and in this country.
In relation to the member's
question about gagging matters, as I outlined to him earlier, under the laws
passed by the last government in 2015, the identity of people in the Bennett
Brook Disability Justice Centre is not allowed to be published. They have not
been convicted of anything; they generally have mental health conditions, and
publishing their identity is not allowed under the law that the Barnett
government passed. Therefore, if their identity is published, the agency, as I understand
it, is required to seek to protect that identity because of the law that was
passed by the member's last government; I think there might even be
other acts that require that protection.
However, if the member wants to talk
about these sorts of things, I refer to an article in The West Australian of 15 June 2015, under the last government. It states —
The
State Government has launched Supreme Court action to avoid releasing documents
on the MAX light rail and airport line �
You get that frown; the member does
not really process very quickly. Let me explain it to him again —
The
State Government has launched Supreme Court action to avoid releasing documents
on the MAX light rail and airport line �
There we go; that was under the last
government, in 2015. You actually took legal action not to release information
about a broken promise on MAX light rail. There are numerous other cases. There
is a headline from 2016, under the last government again, that it kept secret
dozens and dozens of documents being sought by the press in this state. Do not
come in here with some of the most hypocritical and silly questions I have ever
heard and expect to be treated seriously.
media in this state and I am very friendly with many people in the media. I interact
with them on a daily basis and, indeed, a number of my staff are former members
of the media, so I have a great deal of respect for the role that is played by
the media in our community. A free press is very important to the future of
democracy in Western Australia and in this country.
In relation to the member's
question about gagging matters, as I outlined to him earlier, under the laws
passed by the last government in 2015, the identity of people in the Bennett
Brook Disability Justice Centre is not allowed to be published. They have not
been convicted of anything; they generally have mental health conditions, and
publishing their identity is not allowed under the law that the Barnett
government passed. Therefore, if their identity is published, the agency, as I understand
it, is required to seek to protect that identity because of the law that was
passed by the member's last government; I think there might even be
other acts that require that protection.
However, if the member wants to talk
about these sorts of things, I refer to an article in The West Australian of 15 June 2015, under the last government. It states —
The
State Government has launched Supreme Court action to avoid releasing documents
on the MAX light rail and airport line �
You get that frown; the member does
not really process very quickly. Let me explain it to him again —
The
State Government has launched Supreme Court action to avoid releasing documents
on the MAX light rail and airport line �
There we go; that was under the last
government, in 2015. You actually took legal action not to release information
about a broken promise on MAX light rail. There are numerous other cases. There
is a headline from 2016, under the last government again, that it kept secret
dozens and dozens of documents being sought by the press in this state. Do not
come in here with some of the most hypocritical and silly questions I have ever
heard and expect to be treated seriously.
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.