❓ Minister Prince explains the defeat of the Opposition's Bill to increase penalties for crimes against seniors, arguing it creates artificial distinctions and doesn't address the core issue of lenient sentencing practices. He advocates for a Sentencing Matrix Bill to give Parliament more direction over judicial sentencing.
AnsweredQoN 347Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
The Leader of the Opposition has claimed today that his legislation designed to increase penalties for crimes against seniors was defeated due to party politics. He has also claimed that coalition members agree in principle with the legislation. Can the minister give the real reason that the Bill was defeated? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
I am again delighted to be able to bring to the attention of the House the graph tabled in this place in September clearly showing the sentencing practices with regard to a number of serious offences, including those covered by the opposition Bill that was finally debated last night. I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
Mr PRINCE replied: I am again delighted to be able to bring to the attention of the House the graph tabled in this place in September clearly showing the sentencing practices with regard to a number of serious offences, including those covered by the opposition Bill that was finally debated last night. I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
I am again delighted to be able to bring to the attention of the House the graph tabled in this place in September clearly showing the sentencing practices with regard to a number of serious offences, including those covered by the opposition Bill that was finally debated last night. I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
Mr PRINCE replied: I am again delighted to be able to bring to the attention of the House the graph tabled in this place in September clearly showing the sentencing practices with regard to a number of serious offences, including those covered by the opposition Bill that was finally debated last night. I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
I am again delighted to be able to bring to the attention of the House the graph tabled in this place in September clearly showing the sentencing practices with regard to a number of serious offences, including those covered by the opposition Bill that was finally debated last night. I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
I am sure all members will agree that when the victim of a crime is a person more vulnerable than the ordinary robust member of society - whether by reason of age, frailty, youth or disability - the court should sentence the perpetrator more harshly. We should not try to create some artificial distinction by saying that those found guilty of attacking a person over 60 years of age should be subject to a higher maximum sentence. That does not work and it discriminates unfairly against many other people who should be afforded the same protection. We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
We can increase the maximum penalties - as we have done in this Parliament over the years. The offence of aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and burglary with other circumstances of aggravation attracts a maximum penalty of 18 years’ imprisonment, but the courts are sending those found guilty of these offences to jail for less than two years. The community expects average sentences to be increased. We cannot do that by increasing maximum penalties. This graph and the practices of the courts clearly demonstrate that. There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
There are two ways to increase minimum sentences: Firstly, by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing - which we all agree is bad in other than exceptional circumstances; and, secondly, by giving this Parliament some power and direction with regard to the judiciary. We should speak on behalf of the people and tell the judiciary what the people expect as a reasonable tariff for these offences. The court should be able to modify those penalties, but it should explain why. There should also be an automatic right of appeal. That is the thrust of the Sentencing Matrix Bill. That Bill was introduced, passed in this place and transmitted to the Legislative Council two years ago. It emerged from that place just three weeks ago. Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
Dr Gallop: We have a House of Review. Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
Mr PRINCE: The Leader of the Opposition’s party gutted that legislation. It would have given the vulnerable people of this State some protection in law and perhaps some right to order, which is the basic element we need in our society. The Labor Party denied the community that right, and we are going to the election on that issue.
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.