❓ Opposition Leader Ripper questions Premier Barnett on exemptions to mandatory sentencing for assaults on police officers. Barnett avoids directly answering, accusing the opposition of not supporting police and mandatory sentencing.
AnsweredQoN 219Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ASSAULTS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS — MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES
(1) Can the Premier outline the exemptions to mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers contained in today’s new police guidelines? (2) Why are people who commit assaults within the exemption guidelines published today now not subject to the government’s mandatory sentencing promise? Mr C.J. BARNETT
(1) Can the Premier outline the exemptions to mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers contained in today’s new police guidelines? (2) Why are people who commit assaults within the exemption guidelines published today now not subject to the government’s mandatory sentencing promise? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
(2) Why are people who commit assaults within the exemption guidelines published today now not subject to the government’s mandatory sentencing promise? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
(1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
(2) Why are people who commit assaults within the exemption guidelines published today now not subject to the government’s mandatory sentencing promise? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
(1)-(2) We are seeing that the opposition does not believe in mandatory sentencing. They laugh at the issue. Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You don’t believe in it. You don’t even know what’s in the police guidelines, Premier. You don’t know. The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
The SPEAKER : Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Premier. I urge the Premier to answer the question but I also formally call the Leader of the Opposition for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is painfully obvious to anyone watching these proceedings that the Labor Party does not support protecting our police officers by imposing mandatory sentences for those who commit a serious assault on a police officer causing bodily harm. That is the bottom line. Members opposite do not support that, do they? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite do not support that position. Under this legislation, a person who assaults a police officer, with exemptions—a serious assault causing bodily harm—will go to jail. What is it that members opposite find they cannot support in that? Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr J.A. McGinty : Tell us about your exemptions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member has asked the wrong person, but I will tell him. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Warnbro! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Look at them laughing at our police officers! Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr J.A. McGinty interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
The SPEAKER : Order! I formally call to order the member for Fremantle for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : A hypothetical situation occurs: a police officer is assaulted. He is going to have to make a decision, maybe with his colleagues, as to whether charges are laid. That is what is going to happen. What is new in that? There will be guidelines for laying charges. For the mandatory sentence to apply, it must be a serious assault. It is not simply going up and patting someone on the shoulder. That is not an assault. It must be a serious assault. The definition of serious assault is assault causing bodily harm. We are not talking about minor incidents. We are talking about a situation in which a policeman or a policewoman is hurt or injured—serious bodily harm. Why is it that Labor Party members cannot find it in their hearts and in their consciences to support the proposition that a person who assaults a police officer—a serious assault causing bodily harm—should go to jail? What is it that members opposite cannot accept in that proposition? We will be asking members opposite one by one during this debate where they stand on this issue, and we will be talking to their constituents and their police officers. We are going to go through it, and the Attorney General will get his opportunity to go through in detail how this law will apply. What we are seeing here is a pathetic attempt by a disorganised Labor Party that cannot decide what its position is on this issue. This issue has been around for five years. It was a defining issue in the election campaign. It is an issue for which this government has a clear mandate. If members opposite cannot make up their minds, fair enough. If they cannot accept that we have a mandate, they should go to the rally that will be held at the front steps in an hour and speak to those policemen and policewomen, and their families, and tell them so. They should tell them that they will not support them, if that is what they think.
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.