❓ Question on extending mandatory sentencing for assaults against public officers, including police, ambulance, and transport officers. The Attorney General defends the government's position and criticizes the opposition's stance.
AnsweredQoN 221Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ASSAULTS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS — CATEGORIES COVERED
I refer to the Liberal-National government’s move to protect police officers, and to the opposition’s confused position on whether it supports mandatory sentencing. For the benefit of members opposite, can the Attorney inform the house about the inclusion of additional categories of persons in the mandatory sentencing bill, and how mandatory sentencing will apply to those categories? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the Liberal-National government’s move to protect police officers, and to the opposition’s confused position on whether it supports mandatory sentencing. For the benefit of members opposite, can the Attorney inform the house about the inclusion of additional categories of persons in the mandatory sentencing bill, and how mandatory sentencing will apply to those categories? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. There are two inherent parts to that question. The first is: to what categories have we extended mandatory sentencing by virtue of this government’s decision; and the second is: what exactly is mandatory sentencing? That was in part the question from the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking—I think quite wrongly—about the idea of exemptions. I will get to that in a moment. For the benefit of the member, we have extended the protection of mandatory sentencing to police officers. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. There are two inherent parts to that question. The first is: to what categories have we extended mandatory sentencing by virtue of this government’s decision; and the second is: what exactly is mandatory sentencing? That was in part the question from the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking—I think quite wrongly—about the idea of exemptions. I will get to that in a moment. For the benefit of the member, we have extended the protection of mandatory sentencing to police officers. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
I thank the member for his question. There are two inherent parts to that question. The first is: to what categories have we extended mandatory sentencing by virtue of this government’s decision; and the second is: what exactly is mandatory sentencing? That was in part the question from the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking—I think quite wrongly—about the idea of exemptions. I will get to that in a moment. For the benefit of the member, we have extended the protection of mandatory sentencing to police officers. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
… Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative.
Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative.
The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. There are two inherent parts to that question. The first is: to what categories have we extended mandatory sentencing by virtue of this government’s decision; and the second is: what exactly is mandatory sentencing? That was in part the question from the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking—I think quite wrongly—about the idea of exemptions. I will get to that in a moment. For the benefit of the member, we have extended the protection of mandatory sentencing to police officers. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
I thank the member for his question. There are two inherent parts to that question. The first is: to what categories have we extended mandatory sentencing by virtue of this government’s decision; and the second is: what exactly is mandatory sentencing? That was in part the question from the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking—I think quite wrongly—about the idea of exemptions. I will get to that in a moment. For the benefit of the member, we have extended the protection of mandatory sentencing to police officers. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct the Premier’s answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What I will do is give the member the answer that I think he is after, and he can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to correct his answer? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
The protection will be extended to police officers, which will include Aboriginal liaison officers, special constables; ambulance officers; prison officers; court security officers; and Public Transport Authority officers—the officers whom people see on public transport wearing uniforms. I guess all these are moot points; the demarcations of the debate that we will have over the ensuing days have to be drawn relatively clearly so that people—no doubt many members of the public will join with the government—will know exactly what we are arguing about, which is whether members of this Parliament actually support mandatory sentencing for assaults against these categories or, indeed, any other categories. Do members support mandatory sentencing, or do they support something else? Last week I listened to the member for Nollamara as she extolled the virtues of extending mandatory sentencing to ambulance officers. I tend to agree with her, but having listened to her maiden speech, I thought that it was rather a strange thing to have come from the member for Nollamara. I thought that perhaps she did not quite understand what mandatory sentencing is. I thought I might make “mandatory sentencing” absolutely crystal clear for members. I quote from Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary definition — Mandatory Enforcing strict compliance … Strict compliance with mandatory provisions is necessary … … Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative. “Mandatory” means one must; “discretionary” means one does not have to. The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
… Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative.
Discretion The power or authority of a decision maker to choose between alternatives, or to choose no alternative.
The member opposite is referring to police guidelines. The police guidelines are the product of the police commissioner; he has approved those guidelines, and one will find — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will give the member his answer; just hold on. Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Those guidelines appear in what used to be known during my prosecuting days as the SOPs manual—standard operating procedure. I think it is now called something else. For almost every charge under the Criminal Code there are guidelines for what police officers must do before and when they make a charge. For instance, the guidelines referred to by the member opposite do such extraordinary things as to require a police officer who has alleged bodily harm—always the trigger point for this legislation—to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. What a radical suggestion that is! What a radical exception! It is a political trick, because we know that the opposition desperately wants to water down mandatory sentencing to make it something that is not mandatory. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you read out the bit that’s underlined? Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure we will get to that during the debate. Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Does the Leader of the Opposition know where they go? They go in the standard operating procedure manual. Does he know why? They are standard operating procedures. Go figure! Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Let me raise this matter: mandatory and discretionary — Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr M. McGowan : They’re all laughing! They’re not allowed to laugh! The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Rockingham! Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I have the member for Fremantle’s internal strategy document for his colleagues on this matter. Has the Leader of the Opposition seen this? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : What is it? Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will table it in case the left wing of the Labor Party has not told other members what is going on. The recommendations made by the member for Fremantle to his party in his internal strategy document were, firstly, to extend the provision to all public officers. However, the second recommendation was to add a proviso akin to the Criminal Code provision in respect of sentencing for the offence of murder, which provides that a person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless that sentence would be clearly unjust. That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
That is discretionary sentencing. It is a recommendation from the member for Fremantle. Are members opposite with me yet? There is mandatory and there is discretionary. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : So you’re quite happy if it’s clearly unjust? Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will move an amendment of that type, which will water this legislation down to nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Will he move that amendment? What a joke. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Armadale! Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Will the Leader of the Opposition be moving that amendment? Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We’ll be moving an amendment to incorporate your police guideline exemptions. Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Oh, I see! Let me say to the opposition that if it moves an amendment of the type I have just spoken about—which was recommended to the Labor party internally—it will water down the legislation, and that will be the end of the legislation. There is mandatory legislation for mandatory sentencing, and then there is something else; if members opposite want something else, they will not see this legislation passed in this house. Mandatory sentencing means that a judicial decision maker has no choice but to place a person in incarceration after a conviction. The opposition may move an amendment if it wishes; it will not be supported by the government, and if by chance the Parliament is foolish enough to accept such an amendment, mandatory sentencing legislation will go no further because it will no longer be mandatory. That is the responsibility that all members opposite will have to bear.
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.