❓ Mr. Katsambanis questions the Attorney General's decision not to include child murderers in the Sentence Administration Amendment (Multiple Murderers) Bill 2018. The Attorney General vehemently refuses, citing a mandate from the public and accusing the opposition of political opportunism.
AnsweredQoN 881Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (MULTIPLE
MURDERERS) BILL 2018 — PAROLE REVIEWS
881. Mr P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Attorney General:
I refer to my question on 18 October, when I asked why the
Attorney General had not included child murderers in the Sentence
Administration Amendment (Multiple Murderers) Bill 2018. The Attorney General
refused to answer that question at the time, so I ask it again: will the
Attorney General expand the legislation to include heinous child murderers like
Dante Arthurs; and, if not, why not?
MURDERERS) BILL 2018 — PAROLE REVIEWS
881. Mr P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Attorney General:
I refer to my question on 18 October, when I asked why the
Attorney General had not included child murderers in the Sentence
Administration Amendment (Multiple Murderers) Bill 2018. The Attorney General
refused to answer that question at the time, so I ask it again: will the
Attorney General expand the legislation to include heinous child murderers like
Dante Arthurs; and, if not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Certainly, no, we will not
be expanding the legislation. We will not be bringing in a government
amendment, and we will oppose any amendment brought by the opposition. Let me
explain the situation again. In 2016, as a result of representations we
received from the secondary victim of a serial killer, we announced our policy—that
is, we would substantially change the Sentence Administration Act as it related
to mass murderers and serial killers. At that time the Attorney General of the
day said that this was impracticable, unworkable, and that the Barnett
government of the day would have no part of it. So we took it to the election;
we took it to the people of Western Australia seeking a mandate. The Liberal
Party opposed the mandate that we were seeking. We were overwhelmingly elected
on this mandate, as all media commentators have noted since the member for
Hillarys' last question.
Since we announced we were bringing in legislation, and in
fact have second-read the bill in, the shadow Attorney General has disgraced
himself by showing himself to be a person unreliable and not of his word. He
said that this legislation we are introducing is impracticable and unworkable.
He was clearly wrong. Now he says—the member for Hillarys also says, as implied by his question—that
the legislation is in fact good, and the opposition wants to extend it to
others. Now, if you think that this government, on your suggestion—without
giving any thought to the matter and having opposed the legislation—will
extend it to child murderers and is going to bring in legislation that would
elevate, for example, a distressed mother who kills her child to the same
degree of seriousness as Catherine Birnie, you are nuts! You are nuts! We are
not going to do it. This is too serious a matter to play your simple politics
with. Your party opposed our proposals. You opposed them, so we took it to the
people to get a mandate. They gave us an overwhelming mandate, and we are not
going to pass a law that would see a mother who killed her children elevated to
the same category as Catherine Birnie—a serial killer.
be expanding the legislation. We will not be bringing in a government
amendment, and we will oppose any amendment brought by the opposition. Let me
explain the situation again. In 2016, as a result of representations we
received from the secondary victim of a serial killer, we announced our policy—that
is, we would substantially change the Sentence Administration Act as it related
to mass murderers and serial killers. At that time the Attorney General of the
day said that this was impracticable, unworkable, and that the Barnett
government of the day would have no part of it. So we took it to the election;
we took it to the people of Western Australia seeking a mandate. The Liberal
Party opposed the mandate that we were seeking. We were overwhelmingly elected
on this mandate, as all media commentators have noted since the member for
Hillarys' last question.
Since we announced we were bringing in legislation, and in
fact have second-read the bill in, the shadow Attorney General has disgraced
himself by showing himself to be a person unreliable and not of his word. He
said that this legislation we are introducing is impracticable and unworkable.
He was clearly wrong. Now he says—the member for Hillarys also says, as implied by his question—that
the legislation is in fact good, and the opposition wants to extend it to
others. Now, if you think that this government, on your suggestion—without
giving any thought to the matter and having opposed the legislation—will
extend it to child murderers and is going to bring in legislation that would
elevate, for example, a distressed mother who kills her child to the same
degree of seriousness as Catherine Birnie, you are nuts! You are nuts! We are
not going to do it. This is too serious a matter to play your simple politics
with. Your party opposed our proposals. You opposed them, so we took it to the
people to get a mandate. They gave us an overwhelming mandate, and we are not
going to pass a law that would see a mother who killed her children elevated to
the same category as Catherine Birnie—a serial killer.
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.