❓ Question regarding the Attorney General's comments on the Dante Arthurs case and proposed law changes. The Attorney General responds defensively, criticising the questioner and defending the changes.
AnsweredQoN 110Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DANTE ARTHURS — PROSECUTION
I refer to the Attorney General’s press release yesterday, which states in part — The consolidation of murder and wilful murder will avoid the problems encountered in prosecuting Dante Arthurs . . . (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the result under the old laws and under the newly proposed laws would be exactly the same in the Dante Arthurs case; namely, a finding of guilt for murder when no intent to kill can be proved beyond reasonable doubt? (2) Is it not incumbent upon the Attorney General to engage in legal accuracy when dealing with such tragic matters of particular community sensitivity? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to the Attorney General’s press release yesterday, which states in part — The consolidation of murder and wilful murder will avoid the problems encountered in prosecuting Dante Arthurs . . . (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the result under the old laws and under the newly proposed laws would be exactly the same in the Dante Arthurs case; namely, a finding of guilt for murder when no intent to kill can be proved beyond reasonable doubt? (2) Is it not incumbent upon the Attorney General to engage in legal accuracy when dealing with such tragic matters of particular community sensitivity? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
(2) Is it not incumbent upon the Attorney General to engage in legal accuracy when dealing with such tragic matters of particular community sensitivity? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
(1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
(2) Is it not incumbent upon the Attorney General to engage in legal accuracy when dealing with such tragic matters of particular community sensitivity? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
(1)-(2) I thought yesterday that the member for Murdoch was missing a vital organ; that is, a heart. I think today he is missing another one; namely, a brain. Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr T. Buswell : You’re a bit touchy! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Not in the least. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me tell members that the result in the Dante Arthurs case would have been radically different under the new proposed law. The first thing is that he would have been charged with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. Under the old law, he could not be, and that has caused distress to the family. I think it has caused grave concern to everyone associated with the criminal justice system, because the Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that he could not charge Dante Arthurs with wilful murder, which is the current most serious offence in the Criminal Code. This is the first impact that is different. Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr C.C. Porter : The result is the same. Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : No, it is not. Let me tell the member why. The second reason the member is wrong is that the sentence that was handed down had a maximum non-parole period of 13 years. That was the maximum that could be given by the court in those circumstances because of the deficiencies in the current legislation. Under the legislation that was introduced yesterday, the court would have had the power—which it does not currently have and did not have in the case of Dante Arthurs—to hand down a sentence that such an offender never be released. That is the first option that would have been available. The second option under our new legislation would have given the court the ability to prescribe a much longer parole period if it had not prescribed that he was never to be released. Under the new legislation, the court could have handed down a sentence with a non-parole period of 40, 50 or 60 years. Under the old legislation, that could not be done. The court handed down the maximum non-parole period that it was able to under the existing legislation; that is, 13 years. If the member thinks that charging someone like Dante Arthurs with an offence less than the most serious offence in the Criminal Code is just, then stick with the current legislation. It is not just, it has caused distress, and it needed to be corrected. We have corrected it in the legislation. Secondly, if the member thinks that 13 years as a non-parole period is adequate, then sorry; he has lost the plot completely. Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr R.F. Johnson : He did not say that at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, he did. Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Let us look at what Tom Percy had to say about the member for Murdoch. Tom Percy is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and a great advocate for the Liberal Party cause. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I do not particularly care what he says about me. He is a member of the Liberal Party. Let us look at what he had to say about the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Attorney General. Tom Percy said on radio on 31 January this year — Whenever you start to have a close look at the Governments, and see how poorly they’re performing, have a look at the Opposition, they’re worse. This is one of the Liberal Party’s own members. He makes reference to “a guy called Christian Porter” and says — He’s a very young bloke but, you know, what you don’t see about him is he’s exactly out of the same mould as Sue Walker . . . career prosecutor, between them, neither of them have ever once defended someone, they see life from one side only and you know, said he does hold some extreme views . . . and I just really think we need someone with a bit more rounded background than a career prosecutor. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : They do not appear to be hearing, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : He said, “they see life from one side only” — Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Reflecting on members of Parliament is not pertinent or relevant to an answer to the question. At least the members for Murdoch and Nedlands have been in a court as lawyers, which is something the Attorney General has not done. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe of course knows that he cannot use a point of order to add or detract from a debate. It is an amazing assumption that members of this place do not reflect upon each other. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. Porter : Supplementary, Mr Speaker? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am still going. Tom Percy went on to talk a little about the member for Hillarys, who will get an honorary mention. The question was posed — . . . I have heard . . . Tom Percy QC is going to have a real good look at Carine. Tom Percy replied — Not a remote possibility. There’re too many horses to feed. And I just couldn’t sit in a Party room with people like Porter, Rob Johnson, and the like . . .
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.