❓ Opposition questions the Attorney General about a one-third sentencing reduction, particularly in light of a child homicide case. The AG defends the government's actions, blames the opposition for amendments, and urges passage of new legislation to address the issue.
AnsweredQoN 291Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SENTENCING LAWS — ONE-THIRD REDUCTION
I refer to the sentencing yesterday of Timothy Farmer, in which His Honour Justice Heenan was forced to reduce by one-third the offender’s sentence for the brutal killing of three-and-a-half year old Mason James Coughlin because of the transitional provisions of the government’s 2003 sentencing legislation. Given that the Labor government has had seven years to institute actual truth in sentencing and given that it has been five years since the Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 failed in this task, I ask: will the Attorney General immediately repeal the one-third sentencing reduction mandated by the transitional provisions of the Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003, and finally bring about a situation in which, for all offences in this state, Western Australians can be assured that in the worst cases of their type it will be truthfully able to be said that the offender can receive the maximum penalty that appears on the statute books? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to the sentencing yesterday of Timothy Farmer, in which His Honour Justice Heenan was forced to reduce by one-third the offender’s sentence for the brutal killing of three-and-a-half year old Mason James Coughlin because of the transitional provisions of the government’s 2003 sentencing legislation. Given that the Labor government has had seven years to institute actual truth in sentencing and given that it has been five years since the Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 failed in this task, I ask: will the Attorney General immediately repeal the one-third sentencing reduction mandated by the transitional provisions of the Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003, and finally bring about a situation in which, for all offences in this state, Western Australians can be assured that in the worst cases of their type it will be truthfully able to be said that the offender can receive the maximum penalty that appears on the statute books? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
As members will be aware, for as long as any of us can remember, a one-third sentence reduction has existed in this state. Prior to 2003 it used to be that the courts would impose a sentence and then, by virtue of the operation of the sentencing act, that sentence would be reduced by one-third administratively the minute the court imposed the sentence. That was nonsense and it brought the courts and the sentencing system into disrepute. For that reason, the previous government of Richard Court appointed the then Chief Judge of the District Court, Kevin Hammond, to report on sentencing laws. He recommended the very change that we implemented—with the one exception that I will come to in a minute. Kevin Hammond said that it was nonsense to have the sentencing act require a one-third reduction the minute a sentence was imposed. When we brought in our truth-in-sentencing legislation, it did not contain the clause to which the member for Murdoch refers. That clause was inserted by the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council by a motion moved by Hon Peter Foss. That outcome was not something this government desired. We wanted to achieve truth in sentencing. The amendment moved by the Liberal Party in the upper house, which required that there be no actual increase in the time spent in prison, has meant that today, in determining the sentence, judges go through a formulaic approach—one with which we are all familiar. As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: As members will be aware, for as long as any of us can remember, a one-third sentence reduction has existed in this state. Prior to 2003 it used to be that the courts would impose a sentence and then, by virtue of the operation of the sentencing act, that sentence would be reduced by one-third administratively the minute the court imposed the sentence. That was nonsense and it brought the courts and the sentencing system into disrepute. For that reason, the previous government of Richard Court appointed the then Chief Judge of the District Court, Kevin Hammond, to report on sentencing laws. He recommended the very change that we implemented—with the one exception that I will come to in a minute. Kevin Hammond said that it was nonsense to have the sentencing act require a one-third reduction the minute a sentence was imposed. When we brought in our truth-in-sentencing legislation, it did not contain the clause to which the member for Murdoch refers. That clause was inserted by the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council by a motion moved by Hon Peter Foss. That outcome was not something this government desired. We wanted to achieve truth in sentencing. The amendment moved by the Liberal Party in the upper house, which required that there be no actual increase in the time spent in prison, has meant that today, in determining the sentence, judges go through a formulaic approach—one with which we are all familiar. As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
As members will be aware, for as long as any of us can remember, a one-third sentence reduction has existed in this state. Prior to 2003 it used to be that the courts would impose a sentence and then, by virtue of the operation of the sentencing act, that sentence would be reduced by one-third administratively the minute the court imposed the sentence. That was nonsense and it brought the courts and the sentencing system into disrepute. For that reason, the previous government of Richard Court appointed the then Chief Judge of the District Court, Kevin Hammond, to report on sentencing laws. He recommended the very change that we implemented—with the one exception that I will come to in a minute. Kevin Hammond said that it was nonsense to have the sentencing act require a one-third reduction the minute a sentence was imposed. When we brought in our truth-in-sentencing legislation, it did not contain the clause to which the member for Murdoch refers. That clause was inserted by the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council by a motion moved by Hon Peter Foss. That outcome was not something this government desired. We wanted to achieve truth in sentencing. The amendment moved by the Liberal Party in the upper house, which required that there be no actual increase in the time spent in prison, has meant that today, in determining the sentence, judges go through a formulaic approach—one with which we are all familiar. As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: As members will be aware, for as long as any of us can remember, a one-third sentence reduction has existed in this state. Prior to 2003 it used to be that the courts would impose a sentence and then, by virtue of the operation of the sentencing act, that sentence would be reduced by one-third administratively the minute the court imposed the sentence. That was nonsense and it brought the courts and the sentencing system into disrepute. For that reason, the previous government of Richard Court appointed the then Chief Judge of the District Court, Kevin Hammond, to report on sentencing laws. He recommended the very change that we implemented—with the one exception that I will come to in a minute. Kevin Hammond said that it was nonsense to have the sentencing act require a one-third reduction the minute a sentence was imposed. When we brought in our truth-in-sentencing legislation, it did not contain the clause to which the member for Murdoch refers. That clause was inserted by the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council by a motion moved by Hon Peter Foss. That outcome was not something this government desired. We wanted to achieve truth in sentencing. The amendment moved by the Liberal Party in the upper house, which required that there be no actual increase in the time spent in prison, has meant that today, in determining the sentence, judges go through a formulaic approach—one with which we are all familiar. As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
As members will be aware, for as long as any of us can remember, a one-third sentence reduction has existed in this state. Prior to 2003 it used to be that the courts would impose a sentence and then, by virtue of the operation of the sentencing act, that sentence would be reduced by one-third administratively the minute the court imposed the sentence. That was nonsense and it brought the courts and the sentencing system into disrepute. For that reason, the previous government of Richard Court appointed the then Chief Judge of the District Court, Kevin Hammond, to report on sentencing laws. He recommended the very change that we implemented—with the one exception that I will come to in a minute. Kevin Hammond said that it was nonsense to have the sentencing act require a one-third reduction the minute a sentence was imposed. When we brought in our truth-in-sentencing legislation, it did not contain the clause to which the member for Murdoch refers. That clause was inserted by the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council by a motion moved by Hon Peter Foss. That outcome was not something this government desired. We wanted to achieve truth in sentencing. The amendment moved by the Liberal Party in the upper house, which required that there be no actual increase in the time spent in prison, has meant that today, in determining the sentence, judges go through a formulaic approach—one with which we are all familiar. As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
As far as yesterday’s sentencing of Mr Farmer, I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse resulting in the death of a child. It was a shocking crime at the upper end of the scale. For that reason, I urge the Legislative Council to address this matter when it meets next week. The first item of priority on its agenda should be the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. That bill will have the effect of removing the application of the one-third sentence reduction for homicide-related offences, such as manslaughter and the one-punch deaths. If that law had been in force for Mr Farmer, I expect that Mr Farmer would have received a sentence very much at the upper end of the scale that is available to the court. I urge the conservatives in the upper house not to delay this legislation. We have already brought in and seen delayed inordinately in the Legislative Council — Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr C.C. Porter : What about every other offence on the statute book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member should just let me make this point. Legislation relating to serious assaults on public officers in this state was delayed for an enormous period in the Legislative Council. That legislation provides that serious assaults on public officers in this state are not subject to the one-third discount. The upper house must hang its head in shame for what it did in delaying that legislation for an enormous period. We no longer have the one-third reduction in sentences for serious assaults and assaults on public officers. I urge the Legislative Council to get on with its job next week with the legislation relating to serious homicide-related offences, such as one-punch offences, which we desperately want on the statute book. We also want the courts to have available the capacity to impose the maximum sentences in those serious manslaughter cases, such as that which occurred in Albany in which Mr Farmer was the perpetrator. Those matters must be addressed. In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
In addition to urging the upper house to get on with its job and the conservatives to stop delaying these important pieces of legislation, I have been in dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, over a period of some months about finding a solution to this very important issue. I have also been engaged in discussions with the judiciary about the best way to tackle this issue, because it seems to me that the maximum penalty needs to be made available to the courts in those serious, high-end cases so that those offenders can be adequately dealt with. That is not to say that all penalties should be jacked up by one-third. I do not think that a sensible person would want that to happen. Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr C.C. Porter : Do you mean jacked up to the maximum that appears on the book? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The member for Murdoch is just beating the drum for something that his side of politics did not want to address when it was in government, and now that it is in opposition, it has addressed it in a way that has compromised our sentencing legislation. We are trying to find a sensible solution. The ball will be in the court of some of the opposition’s people in the upper house next week. I hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously so that justice can be done on serious homicide-related offences. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER : I call to order for the last time the member for Roe and the Leader of the Opposition.
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.