The Western Australian government has requested a coronial inquest into the deaths of three children murdered in the Pilbara, after their grandmother spent years calling for answers about the support available to the family before the tragedy. Attorney-General Tony Buti says he has written to the current coroner requesting an inquest, following a review of material that he considers new or previously unexamined.
The decision changes the direction of a long-running debate about whether the children's deaths should receive scrutiny beyond the criminal case against their mother. It does not, by itself, establish what any agency did wrong. A coronial process examines circumstances and might make findings or recommendations; its conclusions should not be anticipated before the evidence has been considered.
The children, aged 10, seven and four months, were killed by their mother, Margaret Hawke, in Port Hedland. Hawke was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. That criminal outcome established her responsibility for the murders, but it did not necessarily resolve the separate questions raised by the family about warning signs, access to refuge services and the actions of government agencies.
The children's grandmother, Dorothy Papertalk, has been a persistent public advocate for an inquest. Her argument has centred on the need to understand whether earlier intervention or support might have made a difference. A coronial inquiry could give surviving family members a forum for examining documents and testimony relevant to those questions, although the precise scope will depend on the coroner's process.
ABC reporting has described evidence heard during the criminal proceedings that Hawke sought help from a women's refuge before the killings but was told there was no capacity to assist. That fact is central to concerns about the family's circumstances. It does not establish that the refuge caused the deaths or that a place would necessarily have prevented them. Determining any connection between missed opportunities and the tragedy requires careful examination.
Papertalk's request for an inquest had previously been refused by former coroner Phil Urquhart. The refusal became a point of dispute as the family and legal figures challenged the reasons given for declining further investigation. A decision not to hold an inquest at one stage is not the same as a finding that the circumstances were fully understood or that no agency decisions could merit scrutiny.
The WA Ombudsman's public comments exposed the scale of the material reviewed. The records included more than 1,700 pages from relevant agencies, along with documents concerning 17 emergency calls and six family-violence incidents. The existence of those records has become central to the question of what was known by authorities before the deaths and what information was available to the former coroner. It is not an automatic finding of a missed legal duty.
The role of the attorney-general also became contested. Buti had said he needed new material before he could ask for an inquest, and the government released legal advice about his powers. Former Western Australian governor Malcolm McCusker KC and former Children's Court president Denis Reynolds took a different view of the relevant legal authority. Their disagreement was about what steps were legally available, not a judicial determination of responsibility for the murders.
New information entered the public debate through the WA Ombudsman, whose office reviewed records related to the deaths. The review covered substantial agency material, including police information and records about previous incidents and requests for help. The Ombudsman's release of details intensified questions about whether the former coroner had considered all relevant circumstances when deciding against an inquest.
The Ombudsman said his review was conducted using material held by multiple agencies and included police body-worn camera footage. The scope of records now public is one reason the family has continued to seek an inquest: documents can show which warnings reached authorities, but the family also wants a forum that can examine decisions, hear evidence and explain what changed between those warnings and the killings. The requested inquest has not yet made findings about that chain of events.
The debate also drew in former WA governor Malcolm McCusker KC and former Children's Court president Denis Reynolds. The two questioned advice suggesting the attorney-general lacked sufficient authority to direct a further inquiry without new evidence. Their intervention was a legal argument about the powers of officeholders under the coronial framework, not a conclusion that a named official had committed misconduct. Buti later pointed to material he considered new and wrote to the coroner.
Premier Roger Cook had previously indicated that genuinely new information could create an opportunity for the attorney-general to ask the coroner to reconsider the issue. The government's latest move followed that discussion. Buti said he was now satisfied there were circumstances or evidence not considered in the earlier decision. His statement gives a reason for the change of position without predetermining what the proposed inquest will establish.
An inquest has a different function from a criminal prosecution. The criminal case concerned whether the accused committed the murders, and that process resulted in a conviction and sentence. A coronial investigation is concerned with the circumstances of a death and might examine broader system issues. The two processes can involve overlapping events while asking different questions and applying different legal procedures.
Papertalk’s campaign has focused on questions not resolved by her daughter’s murder convictions: who knew about the family’s difficulties, which agencies were contacted and whether earlier interventions were possible. Court proceedings established responsibility for the murders; an inquest, if held, would investigate the broader circumstances of those deaths and may hear evidence that falls outside the criminal trial.
The debate has unfolded amid wider concerns about child protection in the Pilbara. National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Sue-Anne Hunter has announced work examining how government agencies respond to children and families in the region. That review has broader terms than the deaths of the Hawke children and should not be confused with the requested coronial inquest.
Papertalk has said her requests for more comprehensive answers arose from the family's experience seeking support and from concerns about what government agencies knew. The public interest is not confined to the criminal verdict: it includes the relationship between child protection, housing and family-violence responses in the Pilbara. The National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People has also been examining systemic conditions, but that broader review is separate from the requested inquest.
Hunter has spoken about the need for agencies to coordinate rather than treat family problems as isolated tasks. The importance of coordination is particularly clear in places where child safety, housing, family violence response and health services might all interact. That is a policy concern grounded in the commissioner's stated remit, not an accusation against every worker or organisation serving the region.
A significant part of the story is the family's relationship with official information. Papertalk has sought access to explanations about what happened before her grandchildren died. The records are necessarily sensitive because they involve children, family circumstances and government interactions. The public's interest in accountability does not eliminate the need to protect private or distressing information where disclosure serves no clear purpose.
A coronial examination can consider what information was available to different agencies at the time and whether it was passed to the people responsible for responding. It may also examine the practical limits facing services, rather than judging every decision solely by what became known later. The existence of a request for an inquest does not establish that any particular agency breached a duty. The evidence presented in any future proceeding, and the coroner's conclusions, will determine what can be said about failures or missed opportunities.
The same caution applies to language about child protection agencies. Records might show that warnings or requests for help occurred, but that is only part of the investigation. The critical questions involve what each agency was told, its legal and practical capacity to respond and what decisions followed. Without the full record tested through a fair process, assigning blame to a named worker would be premature.
The family's request for more answers follows a criminal case that established responsibility for the children's deaths but did not resolve every question about earlier contact with services. Their grandmother's campaign has focused on obtaining a fuller account of what happened before the tragedy. The attorney-general's decision to seek a coronial examination represents a further avenue for scrutiny. Whether that process identifies systemic problems, and what recommendations might result, cannot be known before the evidence is considered.
The immediate fact is that Western Australia's attorney-general has asked for a coronial inquest into the deaths of the Hawke children after accepting that new material warrants further consideration. What happens next rests with the coronial process. The eventual value of that process will depend on the evidence it examines, the fairness of its findings and how authorities respond to any recommendations made.
