A member of parliament questions the Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs about a review of mandatory sentencing laws, seeking clarification on the review's terms, necessity, and potential influence from federal ALP policy. The Minister assures that the review is statutory and does not indicate a softening of the government's stance.

AnsweredQoN 424Legislative Assembly
Asked
16 October 2001
Member
Portfolio
Justice and Legal Affairs

QuestionView source ↗

MANDATORY SENTENCING, REVIEW
I refer the minister to his reassurance on 21 August this year that mandatory sentencing laws, which have the support of 93 per cent of the community, will not be repealed, and ask - (1) Can the minister inform the House of the terms of reference of the current review into mandatory sentencing mentioned in The West Australian on 20 September this year? (2) If the minister does not intend to repeal or water down these laws in Western Australia, why is this review necessary? (3) Given that his federal leader, Kim Beazley, has made it clear that a federal ALP Government would repeal these laws, is this review an indication that the Gallop Government is softening its stance on this issue? Mr McGINTY

AnswerView source ↗

(1)-(3) The answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question is that we have no intention whatsoever of repealing the mandatory sentencing laws as they apply through section 401 of the Criminal Code in relation to home burglary in this State. The review of the mandatory sentencing laws is required by statute. When the law was introduced in 1996, a section was put into the Act that required a review after four or five years. That review is current. I should be in a position to table that review in the Parliament next month.
(1) Can the minister inform the House of the terms of reference of the current review into mandatory sentencing mentioned in The West Australian on 20 September this year? (2) If the minister does not intend to repeal or water down these laws in Western Australia, why is this review necessary? (3) Given that his federal leader, Kim Beazley, has made it clear that a federal ALP Government would repeal these laws, is this review an indication that the Gallop Government is softening its stance on this issue? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question is that we have no intention whatsoever of repealing the mandatory sentencing laws as they apply through section 401 of the Criminal Code in relation to home burglary in this State. The review of the mandatory sentencing laws is required by statute. When the law was introduced in 1996, a section was put into the Act that required a review after four or five years. That review is current. I should be in a position to table that review in the Parliament next month.
(2) If the minister does not intend to repeal or water down these laws in Western Australia, why is this review necessary? (3) Given that his federal leader, Kim Beazley, has made it clear that a federal ALP Government would repeal these laws, is this review an indication that the Gallop Government is softening its stance on this issue? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question is that we have no intention whatsoever of repealing the mandatory sentencing laws as they apply through section 401 of the Criminal Code in relation to home burglary in this State. The review of the mandatory sentencing laws is required by statute. When the law was introduced in 1996, a section was put into the Act that required a review after four or five years. That review is current. I should be in a position to table that review in the Parliament next month.
(3) Given that his federal leader, Kim Beazley, has made it clear that a federal ALP Government would repeal these laws, is this review an indication that the Gallop Government is softening its stance on this issue? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question is that we have no intention whatsoever of repealing the mandatory sentencing laws as they apply through section 401 of the Criminal Code in relation to home burglary in this State. The review of the mandatory sentencing laws is required by statute. When the law was introduced in 1996, a section was put into the Act that required a review after four or five years. That review is current. I should be in a position to table that review in the Parliament next month.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) The answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question is that we have no intention whatsoever of repealing the mandatory sentencing laws as they apply through section 401 of the Criminal Code in relation to home burglary in this State. The review of the mandatory sentencing laws is required by statute. When the law was introduced in 1996, a section was put into the Act that required a review after four or five years. That review is current. I should be in a position to table that review in the Parliament next month.
(1)-(3) The answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question is that we have no intention whatsoever of repealing the mandatory sentencing laws as they apply through section 401 of the Criminal Code in relation to home burglary in this State. The review of the mandatory sentencing laws is required by statute. When the law was introduced in 1996, a section was put into the Act that required a review after four or five years. That review is current. I should be in a position to table that review in the Parliament next month.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more