❓ Question regarding the Minister for Justice's handling of security concerns at the Supreme Court following an escape, focusing on communication with the Chief Justice and ministerial responsibility. The Minister's response is defensive and deflective, accusing the questioner of misleading the House.
AnsweredQoN 472Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her failure to verify her comments of 12 June that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had rejected upgrades to security at the court and to her response yesterday to write a letter of apology to the Chief Justice. (1) When did the minister first receive a copy of Mr Hooker’s report? (2) Given that the minister wrote to the Chief Justice only yesterday to apologise, can the House assume that her apology was in response to media backlash to her failure to tell the truth rather than any sense of obligation? (3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(1) When did the minister first receive a copy of Mr Hooker’s report? (2) Given that the minister wrote to the Chief Justice only yesterday to apologise, can the House assume that her apology was in response to media backlash to her failure to tell the truth rather than any sense of obligation? (3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(2) Given that the minister wrote to the Chief Justice only yesterday to apologise, can the House assume that her apology was in response to media backlash to her failure to tell the truth rather than any sense of obligation? (3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few.
As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(1) When did the minister first receive a copy of Mr Hooker’s report? (2) Given that the minister wrote to the Chief Justice only yesterday to apologise, can the House assume that her apology was in response to media backlash to her failure to tell the truth rather than any sense of obligation? (3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(2) Given that the minister wrote to the Chief Justice only yesterday to apologise, can the House assume that her apology was in response to media backlash to her failure to tell the truth rather than any sense of obligation? (3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(3) Will the minister now admit that in her haste to deflect any blame from herself in the aftermath of the great escape she has failed to take proper ministerial responsibility in response to the events of 10 June? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
(1)-(3) More nonsense from the member for Nedlands. I can keep tabling documents for ages. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
The SPEAKER: Order! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would answer the question. Will he allow me to? Will he stop interjecting while I answer it? I will explain, because it has clearly been lost on those who sit opposite, how security matters in the Supreme Court work. I have a memorandum from Mr Ray Warnes, the acting executive director of court services, that has yesterday’s date, confirming information that was given to me verbally. It reads - The management of security in individual courtrooms is at the discretion of the presiding Judge. Section (16) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with General Jurisdiction invests the Presiding Judge with the authority to control proceedings within their Court. In practice an informal application to use restraints, of which no record is kept, is made to the Presiding Judge through their associate by the Officer in Charge of the detention area should they have any concerns regarding the conduct of prisoners within the courtroom . . . The Judge will balance the degree of risk with the right of the defendant to the presumption of innocence and any perceived prejudice a jury might have if a defendant is restrained during their appearance, having regard to the fundamentals of the Westminster System of Justice. Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few. The letter goes on to quote a section of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 that provides for contract workers in court premises to be subject to judicial direction. These are the matters to which I was referring when I made those comments. Those comments were broadcast on television, alongside the additional measures that I was putting in place that day. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Similarly, applications relating to security in general may be made by the State Security Unit if they have concerns based on intelligence they have received. Such applications are initially made to the Chief Justice through his chambers manager, however, the Presiding Judge still maintains control of proceedings within their court. As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few.
As indicated, there are no records kept of applications made for restraint of prisoners in courtrooms however anecdotally there are very few.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kingsley. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those comments did not form part of my press release, and they were not part of any long statement issued by me. They were in response to questions about why greater use was not made of handcuffs and the like at the Supreme Court. That is why I made the comment. If an incorrect inference or impression was drawn that I was in any way critical of the judge, I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise for that - I have done so. To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
To get back to the question asked by the member for Nedlands, she asserted in the House yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: She! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Nedlands, I said. She asserted in the House yesterday that I had not taken any opportunity to meet with the Chief Justice. Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker: After the escape. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the member say after the escape? Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker: When did you see him? When was the first time you saw the Chief Justice after the escape? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When is the member saying I did not see him? What is she saying? Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member is so objectionable that her colleagues have told me that if the Liberal Party in Western Australia was a reality television program, she would be the first voted out of the house. Perhaps the member might just like to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member made an incorrect assertion yesterday, which is on the Hansard record, that I had not met the Chief Justice following that escape. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is wrong. She is misleading the House again. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: She is now trying to ask another question by way of interjection. I am trying to explain things. People opposite do not like the answer they are hearing. In fact, the Attorney General and I had a convivial discussion with the Chief Justice about a week after the escape. As part of that conversation, the Chief Justice expressed absolutely no concern about the comments I had made on that Saturday as reported in the media. He did not refer to any offence being taken, nor was any offence intended to be given. In fact, that matter was not raised despite the fact that we had quite a good discussion on the events on the escape day, videoconferencing and other matters. To my way of thinking, the Chief Justice would have had no hesitation raising any concerns with me, and he did not. I have no idea whether he took the inference that Mr Hooker put up, but in so far as it was ever put to him whether he stood on the hose to stop security measures being put in place, he correctly would have said no, absolutely not. He did not, and nor did I assert that he did. The only people who ever stood on the hose sit in the Parliament opposite us. Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Well before the escape, our Government had already committed money in the budget, with $100 million for the new court complex. The Government had also committed over $3.5 million for a scope of work to take place at the Supreme Court. On 25 February of this year, the date of the brief, the Department of Housing and Works, on behalf of the Department of Justice, engaged CCD Australia to conduct a security master plan for the Supreme Court. That master plan was to take into account, and did take into account, a range of matters, such as the airport security measures and a number of security matters at the Supreme Court building. The three-month tender went out in February. It was completed at the end of June, and we have already approved funding. Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Ms S.E. Walker: Can you answer my question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have answered the member’s question.
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.