❓ Question regarding the timeline for drafting and introducing legislation based on the Chief Psychiatrist's recommendations, particularly in response to the Narkle case. The Attorney General's answer avoids directly answering the questions, instead providing context and outlining the complexities of the proposed legislation.
AnsweredQoN 185Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to the ministerial statement he gave yesterday in which he advised that he would ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to draft legislation based on the recommendations of the Chief Psychiatrist. (1) What date did the minister ask the DPP to commence drafting the legislation? (2) Did the minister stipulate a time frame? (3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(1) What date did the minister ask the DPP to commence drafting the legislation? (2) Did the minister stipulate a time frame? (3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(2) Did the minister stipulate a time frame? (3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world.
When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world.
MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(1) What date did the minister ask the DPP to commence drafting the legislation? (2) Did the minister stipulate a time frame? (3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(2) Did the minister stipulate a time frame? (3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(3) What drafting priority has the bill been given, and what is its classification priority? (4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(4) When will the legislation be introduced into the house? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
(1)-(4) Mr Narkle was free in the community as a result of an understandable refusal by his second last victim to give evidence for a fourth time in a hearing before a court. The woman in question had given evidence on three occasions and felt that she needed to get on with her life. Understandably, she said that she was not prepared to put her life on hold to go through the trauma of a court case yet again. Accordingly, legislation went through this Parliament to rectify that problem and to ensure that in the future nobody would be denied justice as a result of his or her understandable refusal to give evidence. That evidence is now videorecorded when the complaint is first made to the police and constitutes the evidence in chief. Western Australia’s legislation is now regarded as among the best in the country. The second component of the legislative package, particularly in response to the case involving Mr Narkle, is that when a prisoner is nearing the end of the prison sentence he has been ordered to serve by a court, the Attorney General will have the power to approach the Supreme Court to ask that the prisoner remain in prison if it is believed that he still poses a serious threat to the community. I expect that legislation to be introduced and passed through this Parliament during the course of the year. Had that legislation been introduced earlier, it would not have had any impact whatsoever on the Narkle case, because Mr Narkle was not in prison. The legislation will apply in the future to serious sex offenders who are deemed to still represent a significant threat to the community when they come to the end of their term of imprisonment. The Premier and I announced those measures during the course of the election campaign. I expect that the legislation will be introduced during the course of this year. Hopefully it will be passed by Parliament. The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world. The SPEAKER : Order! I know that members had some fun then, but I call the member for Vasse and the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
The third legislative initiative is a far more complex and difficult issue that people in other states of Australia, other jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have failed to resolve because of its massive complexity. It is something that no government in this state has attempted to resolve before; namely, the question of when somebody suffering from a serious mental health condition - in the case of Mr Narkle it was a dangerous and severe personality disorder - can be detained against his or her will, unrelated to any offending, using either the criminal justice provisions or the Mental Health Act. Traditionally in Western Australia, the Mental Health Act has been used only to provide treatment. Only with a treatable mental health condition is that act used so that somebody is detained in a mental health institution in order to undergo treatment. This is a massive step forward to look at this issue of detaining a person with an untreatable condition of a dangerous and severe personality disorder in order to provide protection for the community. When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world.
When the Narkle case came to prominence in the middle of last year, we asked the best legal and psychiatric brains in the state to apply their minds to this question. They worked on it for some six months and provided me with a report dated 24 December of last year. That report stated that although it was announced in 1999 that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom, it was not followed through because of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties associated with the existing laws in the United Kingdom and opposition from significant entrenched groups. Only a handful of people in this state, such as Mr Narkle, have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. We have an obligation to take special measures in order to protect the community. However, we have to get it right, Mr Speaker. The opposition seems more intent on rushing a half-baked proposition through the house to suit a timetable. I am more interested in finding a solution that has avoided every other jurisdiction of which I am aware in the western world.
MS S.E. WALKER : I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
The SPEAKER : We have not finished this answer yet. Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : From time to time, this Parliament deals with simple matters, and at other times it deals with matters of great complexity. It dealt earlier today with some technical and detailed changes to the state’s limitation laws that I place in the latter category. Dealing with the issue of imprisoning or detaining people who are mentally ill against their will, whether or not they have committed a crime, but because they are likely to commit a crime, is a difficult matter. When looked at in that light, people will realise the difficulties associated with this issue, let alone its detail. It is a question of how to define the sort of mental health conditions that would warrant taking away someone’s liberty when they pose a threat to the community. We do not want to go too far in that regard. I need more advice from the experts on how to properly tackle this issue. I intend to seek that advice from everyone available. I can say now that I will not bring legislation into this Parliament that is half-baked and not properly thought through, particularly on a subject matter that has proved to be too difficult for jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
The SPEAKER : I wanted to ensure everybody has finished their comments across the chamber in which no-one is interested. If members want to have a yak across the chamber because it is felt it is their turn to talk, I will tell them otherwise.
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.