❓ Opposition Leader Barnett questions Premier Gallop's commitment to mandatory sentencing, accusing him of hypocrisy regarding a 1999 vote. Gallop defends his position, arguing for fairness in the legislation.
AnsweredQoN 951Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MANDATORY SENTENCING LEGISLATION, REMOVAL OF ANOMALY
I refer to the Premier’s statements as reported in The West Australian today criticising the President of the Children’s Court, Kate O’Brien, for using a legal loophole to circumvent mandatory sentencing legislation, in which he said that if anomalies existed in the law they would be removed. (1) Is it not a fact that in 1999 the Labor Party, under the Premier’s leadership, acted to defeat a clause in legislation introduced by the then coalition Government that would have removed the very anomaly to which he referred? (2) Will the Premier now apologise for misleading the public of Western Australia by pretending to be tough on crime while, in fact, he and the Labor Party in 1999 deliberately acted to undermine the mandatory sentencing laws? Dr GALLOP
I refer to the Premier’s statements as reported in The West Australian today criticising the President of the Children’s Court, Kate O’Brien, for using a legal loophole to circumvent mandatory sentencing legislation, in which he said that if anomalies existed in the law they would be removed. (1) Is it not a fact that in 1999 the Labor Party, under the Premier’s leadership, acted to defeat a clause in legislation introduced by the then coalition Government that would have removed the very anomaly to which he referred? (2) Will the Premier now apologise for misleading the public of Western Australia by pretending to be tough on crime while, in fact, he and the Labor Party in 1999 deliberately acted to undermine the mandatory sentencing laws? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
(1) Is it not a fact that in 1999 the Labor Party, under the Premier’s leadership, acted to defeat a clause in legislation introduced by the then coalition Government that would have removed the very anomaly to which he referred? (2) Will the Premier now apologise for misleading the public of Western Australia by pretending to be tough on crime while, in fact, he and the Labor Party in 1999 deliberately acted to undermine the mandatory sentencing laws? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
(2) Will the Premier now apologise for misleading the public of Western Australia by pretending to be tough on crime while, in fact, he and the Labor Party in 1999 deliberately acted to undermine the mandatory sentencing laws? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
(1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
(1) Is it not a fact that in 1999 the Labor Party, under the Premier’s leadership, acted to defeat a clause in legislation introduced by the then coalition Government that would have removed the very anomaly to which he referred? (2) Will the Premier now apologise for misleading the public of Western Australia by pretending to be tough on crime while, in fact, he and the Labor Party in 1999 deliberately acted to undermine the mandatory sentencing laws? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
(2) Will the Premier now apologise for misleading the public of Western Australia by pretending to be tough on crime while, in fact, he and the Labor Party in 1999 deliberately acted to undermine the mandatory sentencing laws? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
(1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I do not think he has been very well briefed on this issue. I do not think he has seriously looked at the question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, members on this side of the House have taken a very close interest in mandatory sentencing legislation in Western Australia. Indeed, in 1992 the Australian Labor Party put that issue on the agenda in Western Australia. We have a problem in our community with serious repeat offenders. The Australian Labor Party totally supports the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we deal with serious repeat offending. We have to make sure that the legislation that deals with serious repeat offending is tough, but is also fair. That is the test we have to apply. If it is tough but not fair, we will have a problem explaining that legislation in the community. Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Mr Barnett: You criticised Kate O’Brien for what you did in 1999. Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Dr GALLOP: I know exactly what happened. The Government of the day, with Hon Peter Foss as Attorney General, introduced legislation that would have meant that a person who was convicted of an offence, but who was not given a punishment, would have that conviction counted as a strike. We pointed out in the debate in the Parliament at the time that that could cause a real problem with mandatory sentencing legislation. We want mandatory sentencing to work, and the way the three strikes are defined is very important in making it work. As the previous Attorney General Hon Peter Foss said, quite correctly, our legislation is different from the Northern Territory legislation. It was because it was different that it survived the test that was being applied throughout the nation at the time. It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
It is true that the Labor Party rejected legislation which would have meant that a conviction against a person for which no punishment was given would have counted as a strike. Quite anomalous situations could have emerged in the way that legislation was applied. We are absolutely behind mandatory sentencing. We believe it is very important. The Leader of the Opposition must see - Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Mr Barnett: Caught out! Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
Dr GALLOP: I have not been caught out, Leader of the Opposition. The way that mandatory sentencing is applied is crucially important to its effectiveness. That is why at that time we rejected that particular amendment moved by the then Government.
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.