❓ Hon George Cash questions Minister Sue Ellery regarding a letter sent to the Member for Murdoch concerning a submission to the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations about the Balga Works program, specifically regarding the naming of children in care. The Minister denies attempting to dissuade the member and clarifies the relationship between child welfare legislation and parliamentary privilege.
AnsweredQoN 1112Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION - LETTER TO MEMBER FOR MURDOCH
(1) Did the minister write to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his submission to the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations relating to the inquiry into the Balga Works program? (2) Did the minister dispute the undoubted right of the member for Murdoch to make a submission to the committee? (3) Was the minister attempting to dissuade the member for Murdoch from making a submission to the committee? (4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY
(1) Did the minister write to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his submission to the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations relating to the inquiry into the Balga Works program? (2) Did the minister dispute the undoubted right of the member for Murdoch to make a submission to the committee? (3) Was the minister attempting to dissuade the member for Murdoch from making a submission to the committee? (4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(2) Did the minister dispute the undoubted right of the member for Murdoch to make a submission to the committee? (3) Was the minister attempting to dissuade the member for Murdoch from making a submission to the committee? (4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(3) Was the minister attempting to dissuade the member for Murdoch from making a submission to the committee? (4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(2) Did the minister dispute the undoubted right of the member for Murdoch to make a submission to the committee? (3) Was the minister attempting to dissuade the member for Murdoch from making a submission to the committee? (4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(3) Was the minister attempting to dissuade the member for Murdoch from making a submission to the committee? (4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(4) Does the minister concede that the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1947 do not displace the parliamentary privilege that applies to standing committee submissions; and, if not, will the minister advise how the provisions of the act are elevated above parliamentary privilege? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(1) I wrote to the member for Murdoch on 2 October 2007 regarding his naming of persons who may have been children in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection. My letter referred to his letter, which was identified in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”, as a “Request to Appear” at appendix 1. At the time of writing, I was not, nor am I now, aware of the contents of any submission made by him. (2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(2) I do not deny the right of the member for Murdoch or any other member to make a submission to the committee. (3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(3) Certainly not. (4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
(4) The Child Welfare Act 1947 is no longer in effect, but neither that past act nor the present act, the Children and Community Services Act 2004, displaces parliamentary privilege. What I wrote in that letter to the member for Murdoch includes the following - I accept that Members of Parliament have privileges and that as Members we must make judgements about balancing the rights of privacy of individuals we may name versus a compelling public interest. It is important - I have raised this matter in this house before when members have revealed information that I think could identify a child - that members consider, before identifying children under parliamentary privilege, the impact this can have on vulnerable children and young people, their carers and family. This can have serious consequences for their mental health and wellbeing and may even pose a risk to their safety.
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.