❓ Question regarding the delay of truth-in-sentencing legislation and its impact on sentence reductions for serious offenders. The Attorney General deflects, criticising the previous government's handling of the issue and outlining the complexities involved in drafting the new legislation.
AnsweredQoN 12Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING LEGISLATION — SENTENCE REDUCTIONS FOR SERIOUS OFFENDERS
(1) In light of the government’s failure to prioritise passage of the truth-in-sentencing legislation this year as promised, will the Attorney General confirm that more than 2 000 serious offenders are likely to be sentenced and receive reductions to their prison sentences prior to the legislation being passed next year? (2) Will the Attorney General confirm that amongst those offenders will be a number of killers, sex offenders and cyber predators who will be given a one-third discount on what is just because of this government’s failure to progress this legislation as a matter of urgency? Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER
(1) In light of the government’s failure to prioritise passage of the truth-in-sentencing legislation this year as promised, will the Attorney General confirm that more than 2 000 serious offenders are likely to be sentenced and receive reductions to their prison sentences prior to the legislation being passed next year? (2) Will the Attorney General confirm that amongst those offenders will be a number of killers, sex offenders and cyber predators who will be given a one-third discount on what is just because of this government’s failure to progress this legislation as a matter of urgency? Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
(2) Will the Attorney General confirm that amongst those offenders will be a number of killers, sex offenders and cyber predators who will be given a one-third discount on what is just because of this government’s failure to progress this legislation as a matter of urgency? Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
(1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
(2) Will the Attorney General confirm that amongst those offenders will be a number of killers, sex offenders and cyber predators who will be given a one-third discount on what is just because of this government’s failure to progress this legislation as a matter of urgency? Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
(1)-(2) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question. It is indeed an interesting question. It takes me back to some of the many statements that the former Attorney General said about truth-in-sentencing. Of course, many of us in this house do not really understand what it is all about, but that can be forgiven, because it is quite complicated. What we on this side of the house did understand very early after 2003 was that it was a problem. It became quite clear after 2003 that this was a problem—a problem that has now led to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : What is the Attorney General doing about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : We will get on to that in a moment. Let me put to the member for Fremantle his view about this when he was in government. I quote from the Hansard report of this place for Tuesday, 4 September 2007. I think the member will enjoy it. This is the former Attorney General’s reference to the truth-in-sentencing provisions 2003 — It does not mean a thing because it is a transitional provision, which says that people being sentenced should not spend any more or any less time in prison on account of these changes that were designed to introduce greater transparency into the process … Every time this Parliament changes the law to rewrite the substantive provisions of the law or the penalty, we revert to having the ability to apply the full penalty under the law. The former Attorney General’s view — Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.R. Quigley : What date was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : That was 4 September 2007. His view was that it does not mean a thing. That is why we had to wait for the change in government to get the legislation we need. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : That legislation will be before cabinet on Monday and before this house at the next sitting week. Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : In the second-last sitting week this year! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Let me just add — Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : You’re not giving it any priority at all! Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : — to that, that there are two quite complicated problems in drafting this legislation; we have two Goldilocks problems. When drafting the legislation, we cannot make the porridge too hot and we cannot make the porridge too cold. I have seen the former Attorney General’s draft; the porridge was very cold indeed. It was a draft designed not to effect any change to the truth-in-sentencing laws — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true and you know it! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is absolutely true because the draft legislation mandatorily required judges to take into account remission, which meant that only in the top one or two worst cases that we see every six months would there be any change pre and post the changes — Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : That is not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : The member knows it is true — Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : You are misleading the house. Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : — because he was too scared — Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : I know it might be inexperience, but you shouldn’t say things that are not true. Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : — to do it properly because the state would end up having to pay for it. The second Goldilocks point is that under the legislation we will shortly introduce there will be an increment in the number of people serving an increased length of sentence. That will cost money. That is another matter that we have had to document fully — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr C.C. PORTER : I have produced seven models of costing. Do members know how many models for costing for the truth-in-sentencing changes I inherited from the former Attorney General? Zero! Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr M.J. Cowper : Good question, member! Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
Mr J.A. McGinty : Not a good answer though!
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.