❓ Opposition questions Premier about Attorney General's comments on sentencing for assaulting police officers, alleging inaccuracies and misleading the public. Premier defends reforms without directly addressing the accuracy of the comments.
AnsweredQoN 129Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ATTORNEY GENERAL — SENTENCING COMMENTS
I refer to the Attorney General’s comments on 6PR radio this morning. My notes show that he is reported to have said — From the end of this month onwards, anyone who comes up for sentencing for assaulting a police officer will have their sentence automatically increased by a third before you start. (1) Will the Premier now confirm that this statement is wrong on two counts: firstly, because all new offences for assaults on police officers will apply only to those charged after the new sentences are passed; and, secondly, because the new sentences for simple assaults on police officers will not automatically increase the penalty by one-third, the maximum sentences will be increased from only 6.6 to seven years? (2) Will the Premier now correct this obvious attempt by the Attorney General to mislead the public into thinking that this government is actually doing anything of any value to clamp down on people who assault our police officers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
I refer to the Attorney General’s comments on 6PR radio this morning. My notes show that he is reported to have said — From the end of this month onwards, anyone who comes up for sentencing for assaulting a police officer will have their sentence automatically increased by a third before you start. (1) Will the Premier now confirm that this statement is wrong on two counts: firstly, because all new offences for assaults on police officers will apply only to those charged after the new sentences are passed; and, secondly, because the new sentences for simple assaults on police officers will not automatically increase the penalty by one-third, the maximum sentences will be increased from only 6.6 to seven years? (2) Will the Premier now correct this obvious attempt by the Attorney General to mislead the public into thinking that this government is actually doing anything of any value to clamp down on people who assault our police officers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
(2) Will the Premier now correct this obvious attempt by the Attorney General to mislead the public into thinking that this government is actually doing anything of any value to clamp down on people who assault our police officers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
(1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
(2) Will the Premier now correct this obvious attempt by the Attorney General to mislead the public into thinking that this government is actually doing anything of any value to clamp down on people who assault our police officers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
(1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I did not hear the relevant interview but I am familiar with our position and the Attorney General’s position on this issue. Our reforms are very good. Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr T. Buswell : Was he accurate on the radio this morning? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I did not hear the radio interview this morning. I was busy working. I do not know about the Leader of the Opposition, but I start work pretty early. Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Dr K.D. Hames : What time did you get home? Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I got home at about 11 o’clock last night. What time did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get home? Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : Do members opposite want to know which side of the bed I sleep on? Anyone who opposes our legislation would be doing the wrong thing and anyone who takes an analytical look at the opposition’s alternative suggestion on mandatory minimum sentencing would probably respond in the same way as Tom Percy responded when he said that he would take that proposal any day. Under the opposition’s proposal, a person charged with that type of assault would be sentenced to a minimum of one year for the offence, and a defence lawyer would agree to that because, by and large, an offender would ordinarily be sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment for that type of offence. Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr R.F. Johnson : They don’t even get that. You know that and I know that. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER : The opposition has a lot of work to do. The major changes in our legislation, which the Attorney General referred to this morning, rightly and correctly remove the requirement that sentences be discounted by one-third. As I recall, that reform was instituted by either the previous government or the government prior to that. It has been a standing law in Western Australia for quite some time. We have removed the requirement that the sentence be discounted by one-third. There was some controversy about that and a sentencing judge made some remarks on the matter in a recent case. That requirement will now be removed. All serious and aggravated assaults are to be dealt with in superior courts rather than in a Magistrates Court. The result will be harsher sentencing. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer will increase from 10 years to 14 years, plus the one-third truth-in-sentencing discount will be removed. The legislation establishes a three-tier hierarchy of assaults on public officers to better reflect the degrees of seriousness of these types of assaults. Those assaults are grievous bodily harm, bodily harm aggravated if in company or with a weapon, and assault. It is a very good reform.
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.