❓ The Attorney General addresses concerns about the exclusion of nurses from proposed legislation mandating minimum sentences for assaults, defending the decision by highlighting the opposition's stance on mandatory sentencing and existing protections.
AnsweredQoN 148Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ASSAULTS ON NURSES — BROKEN ELECTION PROMISE
I refer the Attorney General to the Today Tonight exposé on Wednesday, 19 November, which revealed the hundreds of sickening and vicious assaults on nurses in hospital emergency departments each year. (1) Will the Attorney General confirm media reports that he intends to break yet another election promise by failing to protect front-line nurses and mental health nurses from violent thugs? (2) Will he explain to the nurses of Western Australia why they are not worthy of equal protection under the law he is proposing? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer the Attorney General to the Today Tonight exposé on Wednesday, 19 November, which revealed the hundreds of sickening and vicious assaults on nurses in hospital emergency departments each year. (1) Will the Attorney General confirm media reports that he intends to break yet another election promise by failing to protect front-line nurses and mental health nurses from violent thugs? (2) Will he explain to the nurses of Western Australia why they are not worthy of equal protection under the law he is proposing? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
(1) Will the Attorney General confirm media reports that he intends to break yet another election promise by failing to protect front-line nurses and mental health nurses from violent thugs? (2) Will he explain to the nurses of Western Australia why they are not worthy of equal protection under the law he is proposing? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
(2) Will he explain to the nurses of Western Australia why they are not worthy of equal protection under the law he is proposing? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
(1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
(1) Will the Attorney General confirm media reports that he intends to break yet another election promise by failing to protect front-line nurses and mental health nurses from violent thugs? (2) Will he explain to the nurses of Western Australia why they are not worthy of equal protection under the law he is proposing? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
(2) Will he explain to the nurses of Western Australia why they are not worthy of equal protection under the law he is proposing? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
I thank the member for his question. He has excellent taste in television news. (1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
(1)-(2) He is obviously referring to today’s legislation, which will bring about in due course minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers. He is obviously referring to the fact that the original legislation, which was brought into this place as a private member’s bill, had an extended definition to public officers, which would have encapsulated nurses in that process. It is a very valid question. I preface my answer by saying that when he asks why we would fail to apply this additional protection to nurses, it is obviously the case that the opposition would not apply the additional protection to police officers, let alone any other category. That is the case, is it not? Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr R.H. Cook : What are you going to do? What is your legislation? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to that. Just so that it is in context, the standing position of the opposition is to oppose minimum mandatory sentences, not only for assaults on police officers, but also indeed for any category of public officer. It is the case that we have drawn the line — Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr R.H. Cook : I think the question was to you. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the member’s question. It is the case that we have drawn the line with minimum mandatory penalties for assaults to police officers. As the member would be aware, mandatory penalties are perhaps the strongest and, in some instances, bluntest instrument that the criminal law has to offer. They are a very, very strong response. The response that we have put before the house today with respect to police officers is the strongest response for legislation of this type anywhere in any state or territory in this country. Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr J.A. McGinty : What’s that got to do with nurses? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get to that in a moment. Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is a ridiculous comment. As I was saying, this is a very, very powerful instrument of the criminal law and it is very difficult to decide precisely where to draw that line. The line has been drawn for police officers. The way the legislation is drafted, it will be extended to Aboriginal police liaison officers. It will not go as far as is the case with other public officers such as nurses. Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr R.H. Cook : You promised you would do that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
Mr C.C. PORTER : I concede that that was part of the Liberal Party policy document. The line has been drawn inside the line that was drawn in the document. I am prepared to stand here and say that that is the case. Do members on this side of the house want to know where the line would have been drawn with members opposite? It would not have been drawn at all. They are asking us why we did not do something that they are absolutely, fundamentally and philosophically opposed to doing. The legislation that the former government brought in to amend sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code was good legislation and it does go some way in offering additional protection to the categories of people that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nominated, being nurses and other allied health care workers. That legislation increases the penalties for certain categories of offences. The legislation that we have brought in is at the absolute forefront of protection for police officers. The really interesting question here will be: will the opposition support it?
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.