❓ The Attorney General addresses concerns about the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008 and its impact on young people, particularly regarding mandatory sentencing. He defends the government's policy while acknowledging the Commissioner for Children and Young People's views, and agrees to table related correspondence.
AnsweredQoN 630Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL 2008 — MANDATORY SENTENCING OF YOUNG PEOPLE
(1) Will the Attorney General please table any correspondence between him and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008, and the likely impact of mandatory sentencing on children in Western Australia? (2) If no to (1), why not? Mr C.C. PORTER
(1) Will the Attorney General please table any correspondence between him and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008, and the likely impact of mandatory sentencing on children in Western Australia? (2) If no to (1), why not? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
(2) If no to (1), why not? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
(1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation.
Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
(2) If no to (1), why not? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
I thank the member for her question. (1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
(1)-(2) It is the case that I have received correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the bill that will bring about mandatory sentencing in this state for assaults on police officers. I am happy to table that correspondence. I have had several conversations with the commissioner. This was also the subject of a question on notice to me from one of the member’s colleagues in the other place, Hon Giz Watson. To give some background to the discussions I had with the commissioner, a good starting point is section 19(g) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006. Section 19 sets out all the functions of the commissioner. Section 19(g) states — to monitor and review written laws, draft laws, policies, practices and services affecting the wellbeing of children and young people; … That is most sensible; however, as I understand it, the provision does not suggest, and there is no literal interpretation of it that would provide for, any compulsion on the government of the day to send to the commissioner advance copies of draft legislation that would otherwise be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. That would be quite an extraordinary departure from standards of cabinet confidentiality and the way in which legislation is drafted. That is not to say that there will not be occasions when draft legislation may be forwarded by a relevant minister by choice to the commissioner to receive her assessment. I imagine that that type of legislation would be more of the ilk to which the commissioner would contribute some detailed input through the provision of any statistical or empirical evidence of impacts upon children that there might be, pursuant to the legislation. I had conversations with the commissioner after the Criminal Code Amendment Bill was drafted and presented to this house, and she presented her views. It is certainly fair to say that her preference would be for the legislation to not apply to juveniles. I have received her views; they are views with which the government in large part disagrees. This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper : Do you intend to restrict the mandate of the commissioner in any way? Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
This highlights one of the difficulties of having commissioners of this type. In this case it is a matter of policy and mandate. The Liberal Party clearly went to an election on this issue, and it was central to our success in that election. We intend to pursue this legislation, although I have taken the commissioner’s views on board. In fact, they are views of policy and philosophy rather than views about empirics, statistics or the nuts-and-bolts effects of the legislation.
Mr C.C. PORTER : No, not at all. By behaving as I have behaved in this matter, I do not think that I have restricted her ability in any sense or fashion. The point I am making about section 19(g) is that I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that that section compels any government to send to the commissioner draft legislation that is covered by cabinet-in-confidence arrangements, just as it would not compel the Inspector of Custodial Services or any other person. I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
I will table the letter; I have had several conversations with the commissioner.
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.