❓ Opposition questions Premier Barnett's claim that 'most' attacks on elderly are by other elderly, highlighting community concern about external attacks. Premier retracts 'most', clarifies context as mandatory sentencing implications for elderly-on-elderly incidents.
AnsweredQoN 688Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MANDATORY SENTENCING — ATTACKS ON ELDERLY PEOPLE
I refer to the Premier’s comments yesterday as reported in today’s The West Australian that most attacks on the aged were by other elderly people. I refer also to the Premier’s own Attorney General’s inability to back these claims when he was asked about them on radio this morning. (1) Exactly what information did the Premier base this claim on? (2) Is the Premier so out of touch with our community that he thinks our nursing homes are full of seniors attacking each other, when rampant attacks on seniors in their own homes by other people is the issue that has our community very worried? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the Premier’s comments yesterday as reported in today’s The West Australian that most attacks on the aged were by other elderly people. I refer also to the Premier’s own Attorney General’s inability to back these claims when he was asked about them on radio this morning. (1) Exactly what information did the Premier base this claim on? (2) Is the Premier so out of touch with our community that he thinks our nursing homes are full of seniors attacking each other, when rampant attacks on seniors in their own homes by other people is the issue that has our community very worried? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
(1) Exactly what information did the Premier base this claim on? (2) Is the Premier so out of touch with our community that he thinks our nursing homes are full of seniors attacking each other, when rampant attacks on seniors in their own homes by other people is the issue that has our community very worried? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
(2) Is the Premier so out of touch with our community that he thinks our nursing homes are full of seniors attacking each other, when rampant attacks on seniors in their own homes by other people is the issue that has our community very worried? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
(1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
(1) Exactly what information did the Premier base this claim on? (2) Is the Premier so out of touch with our community that he thinks our nursing homes are full of seniors attacking each other, when rampant attacks on seniors in their own homes by other people is the issue that has our community very worried? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
(2) Is the Premier so out of touch with our community that he thinks our nursing homes are full of seniors attacking each other, when rampant attacks on seniors in their own homes by other people is the issue that has our community very worried? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
(1)–(2) Perhaps the use of the word “most” was not accurate. Probably “many” would have been a better word used. However, I want to explain the context of the comment. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The conversation in the question was in the context of introducing mandatory sentencing for attacks on elderly people. That is the context. The point I make, and the point I think others have made as well, is that if we were to have mandatory sentencing for attacks on the elderly, the authorities—police and others—would be faced with the reality of not infrequent assaults by one elderly person on another. Most of the assaults—many of them—would be in marital situations, and others would be because of people’s health, perhaps degenerative conditions and the like. It is a reality. When most of those situations occur, because of the obvious situations themselves, they are not recorded as they are not regarded as offences. The police do not act; they deal with the situation on the spot. That is the reality, and that is simply the point I make. Rather than saying “most”, it probably would have been better if I had said “many”. However, the reality is that many such situations arise with elderly people for one reason or another. I do not think anyone, for example, would countenance sending to jail on a mandatory basis an 85-year-old man who in some way assaulted his 85-year-old wife. That is the point I made.
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.