❓ Opposition questions the legal basis for an inquiry into the Department of Justice, specifically regarding the power to make findings against a minister under the Prisons Act 1981. The Minister defends the inquiry's scope and powers, citing multiple acts.
AnsweredQoN 60Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the fact that he has set up his inquiry into the Department of Justice under the Public Sector Management Act, which, as he knows, does not allow for a finding to be made against a minister. Further, I refer to the comments of the Attorney General yesterday, when he said that the Prisons Act 1981 gave the inquirer the power to make a finding against a minister and that those powers are broader and will be sufficient, in his view, to cover the role of ministers. Can minister please advise the house exactly what section of the Prisons Act 1981 allows for a finding to be made against a minister? Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Obviously, he does not understand English. I explained the terms of this inquiry quite clearly during the debate just held in the house. The inquiry has four heads of power. The Premier has called the inquiry under the Public Sector Management Act, so there is the capacity for the processes of that act to be used. The Premier has also said - In addition to the powers given to the Inquirer under section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 , I have directed my Ministers to submit to and assist the Inquiry by providing all documents, reports and plans as requested and being available to appear before the Inquiry as and when required. Not only that, section 9 of the Prisons Act 1981 is also available to the inquiry, as well as the Inspector of Custodial Services Act 2003. There is absolute scope within those heads of power for the inquirer to make whatever findings he likes against whatever minister. I will repeat to the Leader of the Opposition again, as I said in the debate earlier, that we on this side of the house want to appear before this inquiry because we want to talk about the record of current and past ministers, in particular the ministers of the previous government. Points of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The minister is not being relevant, and therefore is breaching standing orders. I asked the minister specifically which section of the Prisons Act allows for a finding to be made against a minister. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct him to answer that question. The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Obviously, he does not understand English. I explained the terms of this inquiry quite clearly during the debate just held in the house. The inquiry has four heads of power. The Premier has called the inquiry under the Public Sector Management Act, so there is the capacity for the processes of that act to be used. The Premier has also said - In addition to the powers given to the Inquirer under section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 , I have directed my Ministers to submit to and assist the Inquiry by providing all documents, reports and plans as requested and being available to appear before the Inquiry as and when required. Not only that, section 9 of the Prisons Act 1981 is also available to the inquiry, as well as the Inspector of Custodial Services Act 2003. There is absolute scope within those heads of power for the inquirer to make whatever findings he likes against whatever minister. I will repeat to the Leader of the Opposition again, as I said in the debate earlier, that we on this side of the house want to appear before this inquiry because we want to talk about the record of current and past ministers, in particular the ministers of the previous government. Points of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The minister is not being relevant, and therefore is breaching standing orders. I asked the minister specifically which section of the Prisons Act allows for a finding to be made against a minister. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct him to answer that question. The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Obviously, he does not understand English. I explained the terms of this inquiry quite clearly during the debate just held in the house. The inquiry has four heads of power. The Premier has called the inquiry under the Public Sector Management Act, so there is the capacity for the processes of that act to be used. The Premier has also said - In addition to the powers given to the Inquirer under section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 , I have directed my Ministers to submit to and assist the Inquiry by providing all documents, reports and plans as requested and being available to appear before the Inquiry as and when required. Not only that, section 9 of the Prisons Act 1981 is also available to the inquiry, as well as the Inspector of Custodial Services Act 2003. There is absolute scope within those heads of power for the inquirer to make whatever findings he likes against whatever minister. I will repeat to the Leader of the Opposition again, as I said in the debate earlier, that we on this side of the house want to appear before this inquiry because we want to talk about the record of current and past ministers, in particular the ministers of the previous government. Points of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The minister is not being relevant, and therefore is breaching standing orders. I asked the minister specifically which section of the Prisons Act allows for a finding to be made against a minister. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct him to answer that question. The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Obviously, he does not understand English. I explained the terms of this inquiry quite clearly during the debate just held in the house. The inquiry has four heads of power. The Premier has called the inquiry under the Public Sector Management Act, so there is the capacity for the processes of that act to be used. The Premier has also said - In addition to the powers given to the Inquirer under section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 , I have directed my Ministers to submit to and assist the Inquiry by providing all documents, reports and plans as requested and being available to appear before the Inquiry as and when required. Not only that, section 9 of the Prisons Act 1981 is also available to the inquiry, as well as the Inspector of Custodial Services Act 2003. There is absolute scope within those heads of power for the inquirer to make whatever findings he likes against whatever minister. I will repeat to the Leader of the Opposition again, as I said in the debate earlier, that we on this side of the house want to appear before this inquiry because we want to talk about the record of current and past ministers, in particular the ministers of the previous government. Points of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The minister is not being relevant, and therefore is breaching standing orders. I asked the minister specifically which section of the Prisons Act allows for a finding to be made against a minister. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct him to answer that question. The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Obviously, he does not understand English. I explained the terms of this inquiry quite clearly during the debate just held in the house. The inquiry has four heads of power. The Premier has called the inquiry under the Public Sector Management Act, so there is the capacity for the processes of that act to be used. The Premier has also said - In addition to the powers given to the Inquirer under section 11 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 , I have directed my Ministers to submit to and assist the Inquiry by providing all documents, reports and plans as requested and being available to appear before the Inquiry as and when required. Not only that, section 9 of the Prisons Act 1981 is also available to the inquiry, as well as the Inspector of Custodial Services Act 2003. There is absolute scope within those heads of power for the inquirer to make whatever findings he likes against whatever minister. I will repeat to the Leader of the Opposition again, as I said in the debate earlier, that we on this side of the house want to appear before this inquiry because we want to talk about the record of current and past ministers, in particular the ministers of the previous government. Points of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The minister is not being relevant, and therefore is breaching standing orders. I asked the minister specifically which section of the Prisons Act allows for a finding to be made against a minister. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct him to answer that question. The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
The SPEAKER : The minister is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition may not like the way in which the minister is answering it; however, he is answering the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I have a further point of order. In question time yesterday, and on other recent occasions, members opposite have taken points of order when there has clearly been no point of order. They use it as a means of trying to interrupt the member who was speaking and engage in debate. That is simply an abuse of the standing orders. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that if that practice continues, you may wish to consider what action can be taken. A previous Speaker, Mr Strickland, got to the position at which he simply would not accept points of order from certain members because they abused their rights in taking points of order simply to interrupt the debate. Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr M.J. BIRNEY : The point of order I was referring to involves standing order 94, which says that a member’s speech must be relevant to the question under discussion. The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
The SPEAKER : As the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows, the second point of order, raised by the Leader of the House had no relation to the first point of order. As I have ruled on the first point of order, it is not in the province of the Leader of the Opposition to raise another point of order challenging what I have already ruled. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the same rule applies to every member in this house. We cannot just allow the situation to develop in which the Leader of the House takes exception to somebody on this side of the house for raising a point of order that he believes is not a point of order and is being raised purely to interrupt debate, when this morning the member for Yokine did exactly that. There must be one rule for the house. The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
The SPEAKER : The point of order is quite correct. Points of order should not be used as a mechanism to interrupt the flow of the business of the house. I am taking special note of how that is going, and that trend will not continue. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO : As I was saying, the inquiry that the government has set up is the most wide ranging since 1981. There have been some nine inquiries since that year. This inquiry will look at the entire prison system and, more importantly, it will have all the powers it needs to examine whatever it wishes to examine. It is important that we allow the inquiry to do that. More importantly, we on this side of the house understand what it is to be accountable and open, and we are quite happy to make ourselves available to this inquiry. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is whether he intends to tell members of his party who were ministers to go before this inquiry and make themselves available for examination of what they did. I am sure he does not want that to happen. He knows as well as I do that he has a locked closet that he does not want me to open, but I will open it and show him what is in there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his party’s record on this issue is despicable, and that that of the present government is open and accountable. As minister, I want to set up the framework for the future. We need prison reform, and the community wants it. The community must have confidence in the system, and we will create that with this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the inquiry, and not to exclude himself and become irrelevant.
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.