❓ Opposition Leader Mark McGowan questions the Premier regarding the Attorney General's decision to deny live streaming of court proceedings, specifically the Rayney appeal, and whether this threatens judicial independence. The Premier acknowledges the differing opinions and raises concerns about witness protection.
AnsweredQoN 90Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
COURT PROCEEDINGS — LIVE STREAMING
90. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
Premier, I refer to Chief Justice Wayne Martin's
concerns expressed today about the live streaming of court proceedings.
(1) Does the
Premier support his Attorney General in denying the opportunity for the public
to see justice in action, including the Rayney appeal?
(2) Is the
Chief Justice correct that the position taken by the Attorney General is ''a
threat to the independence of the judiciary in this state'' and ''usurping
the role of the judiciary''?
90. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
Premier, I refer to Chief Justice Wayne Martin's
concerns expressed today about the live streaming of court proceedings.
(1) Does the
Premier support his Attorney General in denying the opportunity for the public
to see justice in action, including the Rayney appeal?
(2) Is the
Chief Justice correct that the position taken by the Attorney General is ''a
threat to the independence of the judiciary in this state'' and ''usurping
the role of the judiciary''?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
I am aware of the difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and the
Attorney General. I think it is a serious issue that should be carefully and
properly considered. I guess we have all seen an episode of Judge Judy on TV.
Ms M.M. Quirk : The
Chief Justice would be pleased to be compared with that!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
No, no —
Mr M. McGowan :
Yes, that's what it's like!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
And there are examples of screening —
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I respect the point of view of the Chief Justice to allow —
Mrs
M.H. Roberts : To liken him to Judge Judy? You're kidding!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : No; to allow people to view proceedings in the court.
However, has the opposition given a thought to the position of witnesses,
particularly witnesses at threat or who feel threatened or intimidated? Has it
given a thought to that?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am happy to answer a question, but I am not going to yell over this mob.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time. This has now
got to the point where we cannot hear the Premier speak, so if you let the
Premier answer the question —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the first time. If you let the
Premier speak, the chances are that there will be a supplementary question and
we will get through the number of questions that we should in one session.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
So the Chief Justice has put a case for the broadcasting or screening of court
cases, as the Chief Justice is entitled to.
Mr J.R. Quigley : As
occurs in Victoria!
The SPEAKER :
Member for Butler, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
In response, the Attorney General, to my understanding, has raised two issues,
the first being the privacy of witnesses. Yes, it could be argued that the
Chief Justice or a justice in a court can make that decision. But there are
many people who are victims of crime who will be drawn as witnesses—sometimes
family members—who may very well feel intimidated or may very well feel
that their privacy is compromised by a broadcast of proceedings. The Attorney
General is quite correct in raising that issue.
Mr J.R. Quigley :
The Rayney appeal wasn't going to have witnesses; it is being argued on
the law.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Butler, I call you to order for the third time. I do not want to
have to ask you to leave, but if you continue this shouting across the chamber
I will ask you to leave.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
With respect to the part of the question that related to the independence of
the judiciary, it is not simply a matter of that. The Chief Justice can
certainly promote and suggest what he believes would be an advance in court
proceedings—that is entirely appropriate—but it is the Attorney
General who determines the budget for the justice system. That is the
difference.
I am aware of the difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and the
Attorney General. I think it is a serious issue that should be carefully and
properly considered. I guess we have all seen an episode of Judge Judy on TV.
Ms M.M. Quirk : The
Chief Justice would be pleased to be compared with that!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
No, no —
Mr M. McGowan :
Yes, that's what it's like!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
And there are examples of screening —
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I respect the point of view of the Chief Justice to allow —
Mrs
M.H. Roberts : To liken him to Judge Judy? You're kidding!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : No; to allow people to view proceedings in the court.
However, has the opposition given a thought to the position of witnesses,
particularly witnesses at threat or who feel threatened or intimidated? Has it
given a thought to that?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am happy to answer a question, but I am not going to yell over this mob.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time. This has now
got to the point where we cannot hear the Premier speak, so if you let the
Premier answer the question —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the first time. If you let the
Premier speak, the chances are that there will be a supplementary question and
we will get through the number of questions that we should in one session.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
So the Chief Justice has put a case for the broadcasting or screening of court
cases, as the Chief Justice is entitled to.
Mr J.R. Quigley : As
occurs in Victoria!
The SPEAKER :
Member for Butler, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
In response, the Attorney General, to my understanding, has raised two issues,
the first being the privacy of witnesses. Yes, it could be argued that the
Chief Justice or a justice in a court can make that decision. But there are
many people who are victims of crime who will be drawn as witnesses—sometimes
family members—who may very well feel intimidated or may very well feel
that their privacy is compromised by a broadcast of proceedings. The Attorney
General is quite correct in raising that issue.
Mr J.R. Quigley :
The Rayney appeal wasn't going to have witnesses; it is being argued on
the law.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Butler, I call you to order for the third time. I do not want to
have to ask you to leave, but if you continue this shouting across the chamber
I will ask you to leave.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
With respect to the part of the question that related to the independence of
the judiciary, it is not simply a matter of that. The Chief Justice can
certainly promote and suggest what he believes would be an advance in court
proceedings—that is entirely appropriate—but it is the Attorney
General who determines the budget for the justice system. That is the
difference.
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.