❓ Ms. Mettam questions the Police Minister regarding the decision not to impose a VRO on Mark Bombara and the police response at his home before the Floreat shootings. The Minister declines to answer due to ongoing internal and coronial inquiries.
AnsweredQoN 358Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — FIREARMS —
FLOREAT SHOOTINGS
358. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the police department's
decision not to impose a violence restraining order on Mark Bombara, which
would have immediately removed his firearms, as there was no imminent threat to
people.
(1) If there was
no imminent threat to people, why did officers wear bulletproof vests while
attending the Bombara home?
(2) Why did the
minister's officers choose not to escalate this issue even after being
advised that a firearm was missing?
Point of Order
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : Madam
Speaker, point of order —
The SPEAKER : Just before I take
that point of order—member for Burns Beach and others, your
interjections are not appreciated. I know that many of you think you can answer
the question, but please do not. I will now take your point of order, Leader of
the House.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : The
question refers to an ongoing investigation. I think the minister has already
highlighted that he is not able to make comment on specific matters regarding a
legal process. I am not sure that the question is in order.
The SPEAKER : I think it is
correct that the minister has effectively answered the question that the Leader
of the Liberal Party has asked. If she wants to persist with it, the minister
can respond, but she is highly likely to just get the same answer.
Questions without Notice Resumed
FLOREAT SHOOTINGS
358. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the police department's
decision not to impose a violence restraining order on Mark Bombara, which
would have immediately removed his firearms, as there was no imminent threat to
people.
(1) If there was
no imminent threat to people, why did officers wear bulletproof vests while
attending the Bombara home?
(2) Why did the
minister's officers choose not to escalate this issue even after being
advised that a firearm was missing?
Point of Order
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : Madam
Speaker, point of order —
The SPEAKER : Just before I take
that point of order—member for Burns Beach and others, your
interjections are not appreciated. I know that many of you think you can answer
the question, but please do not. I will now take your point of order, Leader of
the House.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : The
question refers to an ongoing investigation. I think the minister has already
highlighted that he is not able to make comment on specific matters regarding a
legal process. I am not sure that the question is in order.
The SPEAKER : I think it is
correct that the minister has effectively answered the question that the Leader
of the Liberal Party has asked. If she wants to persist with it, the minister
can respond, but she is highly likely to just get the same answer.
Questions without Notice Resumed
AnswerView source ↗
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Member, there are two matters.
Firstly, there is an ongoing internal police investigation; I have not yet seen
the outcome of that inquiry. Secondly, it is
subject to a coronial inquiry. I said that at the outset. The member was
talking about specific matters and, as was inferred by her question,
whether or not that might have changed outcomes; that is clearly something the
coroner would prefer we not talk about.
Ms L. Mettam : Madam Speaker —
The SPEAKER : Before I give
you the call for a supplementary, I suggest that you take that into account in
your supplementary. Yes, there is a police investigation, but there is also
that coronial inquiry. I would maybe give you a bit of a heads-up in advance
that you have an MPI on the subject of police today. I would be very wary about
saying anything that in any way jeopardised or commented on matters before that
coronial inquiry.
Member, there are two matters.
Firstly, there is an ongoing internal police investigation; I have not yet seen
the outcome of that inquiry. Secondly, it is
subject to a coronial inquiry. I said that at the outset. The member was
talking about specific matters and, as was inferred by her question,
whether or not that might have changed outcomes; that is clearly something the
coroner would prefer we not talk about.
Ms L. Mettam : Madam Speaker —
The SPEAKER : Before I give
you the call for a supplementary, I suggest that you take that into account in
your supplementary. Yes, there is a police investigation, but there is also
that coronial inquiry. I would maybe give you a bit of a heads-up in advance
that you have an MPI on the subject of police today. I would be very wary about
saying anything that in any way jeopardised or commented on matters before that
coronial inquiry.
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.