❓ Opposition questions the Minister for Police about a critical report on the Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill 2009, highlighting concerns raised by parliamentary secretaries. The Minister acknowledges the report but hasn't fully reviewed it, committing to considering amendments but refusing to scrap the bill.
AnsweredQoN 653Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 2009 — LEGISLATION COMMITTEE REPORT
On behalf of the member for Willagee, I would like to welcome the students from Melville Senior High School to today’s question time. I refer to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation, which unanimously found that the Minister for Police’s Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 ought not to proceed in its current form. (1) Is the minister concerned that the parliamentary secretary to the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General have reached this conclusion? (2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
On behalf of the member for Willagee, I would like to welcome the students from Melville Senior High School to today’s question time. I refer to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation, which unanimously found that the Minister for Police’s Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 ought not to proceed in its current form. (1) Is the minister concerned that the parliamentary secretary to the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General have reached this conclusion? (2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
AnswerView source ↗
Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
I refer to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation, which unanimously found that the Minister for Police’s Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 ought not to proceed in its current form. (1) Is the minister concerned that the parliamentary secretary to the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General have reached this conclusion? (2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(1) Is the minister concerned that the parliamentary secretary to the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General have reached this conclusion? (2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
… There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
… The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
… The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
I refer to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation, which unanimously found that the Minister for Police’s Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 ought not to proceed in its current form. (1) Is the minister concerned that the parliamentary secretary to the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General have reached this conclusion? (2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(1) Is the minister concerned that the parliamentary secretary to the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General have reached this conclusion? (2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(2) Does the minister have the full support of the government to proceed with this bill without amendment? (3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(3) If not, which of the 46 recommendations for amendment does the minister plan to accept? (4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(4) Why does the minister not just scrap this bill entirely, given this devastating report from his own colleagues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Forgive me if I take a little bit longer than usual to answer the question, but it is a very important question and I think it deserves an appropriate answer. (1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
(1)–(4) May I first of all say that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and commitment that the Standing Committee on Legislation put into its report. It is a huge report. I must be honest; I have not had a chance to look at it in any real detail. I am not waiting for the film, but it is a huge report! Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : This is a very serious issue and I suggest that the member be quiet. It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
It is a huge report that needs proper scrutiny. I need to get across it completely. I have had a very scant reading of some of the recommendations; not all of them, because I just have not had the time to do it in the half-hour during the lunchtime break. It is certainly something that the government and I, as the minister responsible, will take on board. In answer to one of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think was the third one—in answer to the fourth one, we are certainly not going to scrap the bill; let me make it quite clear that we are not going to scrap the bill — Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Perhaps I could remind you of the questions because you might have forgotten them. Are you concerned that the two parliamentary secretaries have reached the conclusion that the bill cannot proceed in its current form? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am not prepared to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition over the discussions that I will need to have with my parliamentary colleagues. Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You do not need to get very far into the report to see that both of those parliamentary secretaries do not think that the bill should proceed in its current form. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Perhaps I have more work to do than the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of looking at it in any detail. The Leader of the Opposition is giving a quote. Let me give him a quote, because one of my staff members found a very good quote, which is a committee comment and reads — The Committee acknowledged that there has been a significant increase over the past decade in the reported number of offences involving the use of weapons. … It was accepted by the Committee that there remains an increasing concern on the part of the government, the police and in the community about the number of offences involving weapons and violent and anti-social behaviour in parts of the State at various times. I think that highlights that the committee members do accept that there is a problem out there with the number of crimes that are being committed with the use of weapons. That was the whole purpose of the legislation. I want to take members back, because the origin of this legislation really arose when the Labor Party was in government and when the Commissioner of Police wanted to set up metal detectors at Armadale train station because of the horrific number of crimes that were taking place there involving weapons. He found that he was unable to do that under the legislation that was in place at the time. I could quote what he said on a radio program this morning when he said quite clearly that he does not have those powers to be able to direct people to go through a metal detector or wave a wand over them. There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
There are obviously recommendations in the committee report that the government would accept, either wholly or in part. There are obviously some recommendations that the government may not accept. I have always said that I am prepared, as the minister responsible for this legislation, to make amendments once the upper house committee had come down with its recommendations. For instance, there are very simple ones. The time to the review is five years. I am more than happy to bring that down to less than that. Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Ms M.M. Quirk : You were not going to in this house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I said that I would consider it. It is very interesting because some of the recommendations are very much in line with some of the recommendations for the amendments that the member put forward when that legislation was being put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Ms M.M. Quirk : You would save yourselves a lot of grief and a lot of time — Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Let me pose a question: if those amendments that were moved by the opposition at the time were to go into the legislation, would the opposition now support it or has it got too political? Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you committing to those amendments? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am committing to look very carefully at them. Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the value of that question? Our position is scrap the bill, by the way; that is our position. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The opposition’s position is to scrap the bill. Let me just give the opposition some other quotes. The first is — The community expects us to make laws to protect the community and to be mindful of how we can better equip our police to enforce those rules. … There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas … Blah, blah, blah — Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
… There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
There is a growing culture in this state in which people are going out for a night on the town expecting trouble and making preparations accordingly. They are armed with the most extraordinary array of dangerous weapons. Whilst the law currently prohibits possession of many of these weapons without legitimate excuse, these laws are rendered risible when supply of these weapons, especially to our kids, is not curtailed. … The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
… The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
The other feature of the legislation … addresses the inadequacy of current police powers. As the law exists, … police must have a “reasonable belief” that a person is in possession of a weapon before they can exercise the power to search. … The problem is how police can have that belief if weapons such as a machete … are secreted. This legislation removes the need for police to have that level of suspicion and enables them to search for weapons by way of frisk or metal detector. … The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
… The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
The bill will allow police to search without warrant in certain areas, such as night entertainment areas, gazetted by regulation at specified times, to ascertain whether persons are carrying weapons. We envisage that the areas …
Mr F.M. Logan : “Blah, blah, blah” sounds like a drowning minister! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It sounds as though they are my type of quotes, does it not? They are the member for Girrawheen’s quotes. That is what the member for Girrawheen said on Wednesday, 3 December, when she introduced a bill that was endorsed by the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition, which was far, far tougher than the one before the house. There were far fewer accountability measures in there. This is a complete backflip. The opposition has gone from supporting a bill that was tougher than the one of this government to now saying that it does not want any of it. Opposition members have been led by the nose by the pseudo shadow Minister for Police. He has changed all their minds. I reckon he must have hypnotised them. They are listening to him now, rather than the shadow Minister for Police, the person they should be listening to, who I know supports this. Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Let me just conclude, because it is an important area. The community is still very concerned about its safety. What we will do — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Right! Minister, continue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member is interjecting on his own Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that he do not. Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : There has been an inquiry. Are you going to change your thinking, following that inquiry? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : An inquiry has been held by the upper house committee. I will be very interested to read — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Including two parliamentary secretaries. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It does not matter who they are; it is a committee of the upper house, and it has spent a long time on its deliberations and its report. Of course I will take note of what it has said. I realise that the chances of the legislation going through without any amendments are pretty slim, and I do not want that to happen; I want the legislation to go through. I will be seeking the assistance of the Attorney General to make sure that we get these amendments — Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr P.B. Watson : You’re going to take him down with you! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : As the Attorney General says, I have his full support, and have done throughout the whole time that this bill has been before the Parliament. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Member for West Swan! Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you have the full support of all your government colleagues to proceed with this bill? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that once I have discussed it with my parliamentary colleagues, once we have worked out how we intend to amend the bill and how we can, to some extent, satisfy a lot of the findings that have been suggested in the report, I believe that, yes, all members of the government will support a bill with some amendments. I accept that there will be some amendments; I have always said that. I want to go forward now, because we have a duty to protect the people of Western Australia. It is clear from all the surveys that have been done and from talkback radio that the overwhelming majority of people in Western Australia are not afraid of stop-and-search laws; they want them, because it will make them feel safer. That is what they are saying very loudly and clearly.
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.