❓ Minister Prince discusses the consequences for the Sentencing Matrix Bill following the Standing Committee on Legislation's report, criticising the Labor Party's opposition and arguing for the Bill's passage to ensure public will is reflected in sentencing.
AnsweredQoN 295Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister inform the House what will be the consequences for the Sentencing Matrix Bill following the tabling yesterday of the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
The Sentencing Matrix Bill passed through this House nearly two years ago and went to the Legislative Council. In May of last year it was sent to the Standing Committee on Legislation. It reappeared from that committee either yesterday or the day before with a compendious report. About a page and a half of that report is a minority report by Hon Nick Griffiths, who I think is still shadow Attorney General - if he is not, he was - and one of the members of the Greens (WA). They say they think the Bill should not proceed. The problem it presents, which is of interest to the people of this State, is simply this: The member for Fremantle said in this place in 1998 during the debate on the Sentencing Administration Bill - It is beyond doubt that judges in Western Australia sentence more harshly than judges anywhere else in Australia. We have passed laws in this place increasing maximum sentences. For example, for aggravated burglary the maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and the average sentence passed is 1.75 years; for burglary without aggravation the maximum sentence is 18 years' imprisonment, and the average sentence is 1.75 years. The maximum recorded sentence for burglary is five years' imprisonment and the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is just over eight years' imprisonment. Courts are sentencing at around a quarter of the maximum term that Parliament has provided. Parliament after all represents the people. In order to have more transparency and direction of what the public requires and thinks is reasonable for sentencing, the matrix Bill should pass. The Bill has been held up a great deal in the Legislative Council. Now it seems that on the express wishes of the Labor Party, it will not pass. The result will be that, whether we increase maximum sentences or not, there will not be, on the available information, any increase in the average sentences that being handed out. That is not the will of the people. I table the table that demonstrates this. [See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
Mr PRINCE replied: The Sentencing Matrix Bill passed through this House nearly two years ago and went to the Legislative Council. In May of last year it was sent to the Standing Committee on Legislation. It reappeared from that committee either yesterday or the day before with a compendious report. About a page and a half of that report is a minority report by Hon Nick Griffiths, who I think is still shadow Attorney General - if he is not, he was - and one of the members of the Greens (WA). They say they think the Bill should not proceed. The problem it presents, which is of interest to the people of this State, is simply this: The member for Fremantle said in this place in 1998 during the debate on the Sentencing Administration Bill - It is beyond doubt that judges in Western Australia sentence more harshly than judges anywhere else in Australia. We have passed laws in this place increasing maximum sentences. For example, for aggravated burglary the maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and the average sentence passed is 1.75 years; for burglary without aggravation the maximum sentence is 18 years' imprisonment, and the average sentence is 1.75 years. The maximum recorded sentence for burglary is five years' imprisonment and the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is just over eight years' imprisonment. Courts are sentencing at around a quarter of the maximum term that Parliament has provided. Parliament after all represents the people. In order to have more transparency and direction of what the public requires and thinks is reasonable for sentencing, the matrix Bill should pass. The Bill has been held up a great deal in the Legislative Council. Now it seems that on the express wishes of the Labor Party, it will not pass. The result will be that, whether we increase maximum sentences or not, there will not be, on the available information, any increase in the average sentences that being handed out. That is not the will of the people. I table the table that demonstrates this. [See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
The Sentencing Matrix Bill passed through this House nearly two years ago and went to the Legislative Council. In May of last year it was sent to the Standing Committee on Legislation. It reappeared from that committee either yesterday or the day before with a compendious report. About a page and a half of that report is a minority report by Hon Nick Griffiths, who I think is still shadow Attorney General - if he is not, he was - and one of the members of the Greens (WA). They say they think the Bill should not proceed. The problem it presents, which is of interest to the people of this State, is simply this: The member for Fremantle said in this place in 1998 during the debate on the Sentencing Administration Bill - It is beyond doubt that judges in Western Australia sentence more harshly than judges anywhere else in Australia. We have passed laws in this place increasing maximum sentences. For example, for aggravated burglary the maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and the average sentence passed is 1.75 years; for burglary without aggravation the maximum sentence is 18 years' imprisonment, and the average sentence is 1.75 years. The maximum recorded sentence for burglary is five years' imprisonment and the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is just over eight years' imprisonment. Courts are sentencing at around a quarter of the maximum term that Parliament has provided. Parliament after all represents the people. In order to have more transparency and direction of what the public requires and thinks is reasonable for sentencing, the matrix Bill should pass. The Bill has been held up a great deal in the Legislative Council. Now it seems that on the express wishes of the Labor Party, it will not pass. The result will be that, whether we increase maximum sentences or not, there will not be, on the available information, any increase in the average sentences that being handed out. That is not the will of the people. I table the table that demonstrates this. [See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
[See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
Mr PRINCE replied: The Sentencing Matrix Bill passed through this House nearly two years ago and went to the Legislative Council. In May of last year it was sent to the Standing Committee on Legislation. It reappeared from that committee either yesterday or the day before with a compendious report. About a page and a half of that report is a minority report by Hon Nick Griffiths, who I think is still shadow Attorney General - if he is not, he was - and one of the members of the Greens (WA). They say they think the Bill should not proceed. The problem it presents, which is of interest to the people of this State, is simply this: The member for Fremantle said in this place in 1998 during the debate on the Sentencing Administration Bill - It is beyond doubt that judges in Western Australia sentence more harshly than judges anywhere else in Australia. We have passed laws in this place increasing maximum sentences. For example, for aggravated burglary the maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and the average sentence passed is 1.75 years; for burglary without aggravation the maximum sentence is 18 years' imprisonment, and the average sentence is 1.75 years. The maximum recorded sentence for burglary is five years' imprisonment and the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is just over eight years' imprisonment. Courts are sentencing at around a quarter of the maximum term that Parliament has provided. Parliament after all represents the people. In order to have more transparency and direction of what the public requires and thinks is reasonable for sentencing, the matrix Bill should pass. The Bill has been held up a great deal in the Legislative Council. Now it seems that on the express wishes of the Labor Party, it will not pass. The result will be that, whether we increase maximum sentences or not, there will not be, on the available information, any increase in the average sentences that being handed out. That is not the will of the people. I table the table that demonstrates this. [See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
The Sentencing Matrix Bill passed through this House nearly two years ago and went to the Legislative Council. In May of last year it was sent to the Standing Committee on Legislation. It reappeared from that committee either yesterday or the day before with a compendious report. About a page and a half of that report is a minority report by Hon Nick Griffiths, who I think is still shadow Attorney General - if he is not, he was - and one of the members of the Greens (WA). They say they think the Bill should not proceed. The problem it presents, which is of interest to the people of this State, is simply this: The member for Fremantle said in this place in 1998 during the debate on the Sentencing Administration Bill - It is beyond doubt that judges in Western Australia sentence more harshly than judges anywhere else in Australia. We have passed laws in this place increasing maximum sentences. For example, for aggravated burglary the maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and the average sentence passed is 1.75 years; for burglary without aggravation the maximum sentence is 18 years' imprisonment, and the average sentence is 1.75 years. The maximum recorded sentence for burglary is five years' imprisonment and the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is just over eight years' imprisonment. Courts are sentencing at around a quarter of the maximum term that Parliament has provided. Parliament after all represents the people. In order to have more transparency and direction of what the public requires and thinks is reasonable for sentencing, the matrix Bill should pass. The Bill has been held up a great deal in the Legislative Council. Now it seems that on the express wishes of the Labor Party, it will not pass. The result will be that, whether we increase maximum sentences or not, there will not be, on the available information, any increase in the average sentences that being handed out. That is not the will of the people. I table the table that demonstrates this. [See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
[See paper No 379.] Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
Mr PRINCE: This is part and parcel of the Labor Party's policy on crime and punishment and law and order. Over the past seven years, the Labor Party has opposed the prostitution legislation, surveillance devices legislation, weapons legislation, changes to the three strikes laws to plug a hole and so on. The list is lengthy of the things it has done to attempt to frustrate good law making. This is another example. The Leader of the Opposition will go to the people wearing this.
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.