❓ Question on Notice regarding Sue Walker, a Liberal Party candidate, allegedly working in private practice while on sick leave from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney General provides a response based on advice from the DPP.
AnsweredQoN 100Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MS SUE WALKER, GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SICK LEAVE
Given the recent report in the Sunday Times that Sue Walker, the Liberal Party candidate for Nedlands, was vigorously working in private legal practice while on sick leave from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - (1) What is government policy in relation to people working while on sick leave? (2) Can the Attorney General advise whether Ms Sue Walker, while employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ever applied for approval to undertake employment or work outside that office as required by section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act? (3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY
Given the recent report in the Sunday Times that Sue Walker, the Liberal Party candidate for Nedlands, was vigorously working in private legal practice while on sick leave from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - (1) What is government policy in relation to people working while on sick leave? (2) Can the Attorney General advise whether Ms Sue Walker, while employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ever applied for approval to undertake employment or work outside that office as required by section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act? (3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(1) What is government policy in relation to people working while on sick leave? (2) Can the Attorney General advise whether Ms Sue Walker, while employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ever applied for approval to undertake employment or work outside that office as required by section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act? (3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(2) Can the Attorney General advise whether Ms Sue Walker, while employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ever applied for approval to undertake employment or work outside that office as required by section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act? (3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice.
In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice.
At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice.
Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(1) What is government policy in relation to people working while on sick leave? (2) Can the Attorney General advise whether Ms Sue Walker, while employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ever applied for approval to undertake employment or work outside that office as required by section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act? (3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(2) Can the Attorney General advise whether Ms Sue Walker, while employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ever applied for approval to undertake employment or work outside that office as required by section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act? (3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(3) Can the minister also advise what steps were taken by the previous Attorney General to ensure compliance with government policy in this instance? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: Point of order - Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Several members interjected. Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mrs Roberts: We all know the previous Attorney General did nothing about anything. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to make a point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to him. Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether that question is seeking an opinion. It is an inappropriate question. Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr KOBELKE: This House needs the opportunity to hear all points of order, even when members abuse that right. It is not appropriate for the member to rise and suggest that he has a point of order, when he really wishes to express an opinion. That is all the Leader of the Opposition did. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr Barnett: It is an abuse of Parliament to talk about individuals members of the government sector. The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
The SPEAKER: I have a copy of the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be given one. The question asks about the government policy and for an opinion from the Attorney General. It does not ask for a legal opinion. It is not for me to determine whether the question is appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
(1)-(3) I received notice of this question this morning from the member for Alfred Cove. After I received that notice, I sought advice on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has advised me in the following terms - You sought my advice on the circumstances of a former prosecutor Sue Walker. On the information available to me, at no time whilst an employee, which she was until February this year, did Ms Walker engage in private practice of the profession of a lawyer. I was certainly not aware that she had done so and, in so far as her assistance provided to a political colleague of her, Mr Peter Collier, she advised me that that was not provided as a solicitor. At no time did Ms Walker have permission to engage in the private practice of any profession outside of her functions as a Crown Prosecutor. If she had done so during the period of employment, she would done so in breach of section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and under section 80(a)(i) that would have constituted a breach of discipline and exposed her to the penalties under section 86(3). At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice. That is the advice I received, and I am happy to table it. Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
At no time whilst Ms Walker was on sick leave from my Office was her sickness or illness described as “stress related”. There were, however, certificates and written reports from her doctors confirming her inability to perform as a Crown Prosecutor. In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice.
In answer to the three specific questions of Dr Woollard, I am only able to clearly answer two with the following: At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice.
At no time whilst employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did Ms Sue Walker apply for approval to undertake employment or work in private legal practice.
Mr Barnett: I congratulate you on a proper answer to an improper question. Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr McGINTY: The member has never heard me give anything other than a proper answer. Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr Barnett: I genuinely congratulate you for treating it with some dignity. Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
Mr McGINTY: When this matter was raised with me this morning, I sought an urgent response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the response he provided. I hope it answers the questions of the member for Alfred Cove.
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.