❓ The Attorney General responds to a question about the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010, highlighting its potential to enhance community safety by targeting repeat antisocial offenders, particularly in relation to graffiti, and discusses monitoring its implementation and the role of public awareness.
AnsweredQoN 72Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PROHIBITED BEHAVIOUR ORDERS ACT 2010 — COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
I am pleased that the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010 came into operation at midnight last night, fulfilling another Liberal–National government election commitment. Can the Attorney General please inform the house how this will help make Western Australian communities safer from repeat antisocial offenders? Mr C.C. PORTER
I am pleased that the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010 came into operation at midnight last night, fulfilling another Liberal–National government election commitment. Can the Attorney General please inform the house how this will help make Western Australian communities safer from repeat antisocial offenders? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question. Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
I thank the member for her question. Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for her question. Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
I thank the member for her question. Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
Yes, it is definitely the case that, as of today, the courts in Western Australia are now able to make prohibited behaviour orders against serial antisocial offenders. Those orders will relate to their crimes, and activities associated with their crimes, following the proclamation of the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Act 2010. Those prohibited behaviour orders will start to flow. Interestingly, during the course of long and sometimes heated debate in this place, there was an idea that perhaps, as a government, we were casting the net too wide with respect to how many prohibited behaviour orders are likely to be issued in a given year. We will be monitoring the situation very, very closely. Indeed, as I said in debate, my single concern with the legislation was that we perhaps had been too conservative, but that yet remains to be seen. The website will go online when the first prohibited behaviour orders are given by the courts, which we expect to be shortly. In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
In reflecting on the last year of very long and arduous debate about this issue, and particularly as it pertains to graffiti, two issues arose recently that I think highlight the benefit that this legislation will be to the people of Western Australia. The first is that we as a community tend to view graffiti as a low-level or what police call volume crime, but that does not suggest that the people who are involved in that activity are somehow necessarily minor offenders. They are very often repeat serious and serial offenders. I am a person who has been around these issues for some time, but the footage shown and the pictures that appeared in The West Australian newspaper of an off-duty police officer who tried to interrupt and deter an individual or individuals from graffitiing a spot in his local suburb and the horrendous violence that was inflicted upon that police officer gave me cause to reflect about why this government has tried so hard to get this legislation into place to do something about the offenders who serially and repeat offend in the area of graffiti. Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
Another cause for reflection in this area was an individual sentenced recently in the Magistrates Court for graffiti. He was one of the individuals identified following publication on the front page of The West Australian of individual photos of people who had graffitied areas, particularly public transport infrastructure. We might remember that individual because he had a particular approach to the media after he left court, which was the opposite of being contrite. He came out of the court and made a hand gesture to the waiting media and informed them that he had no intention whatsoever of being deterred from engaging in the activity of graffiti after he had received a fine and after the making of a spent conviction. I do not place any particular blame on the magistrate for that fact. I am sure that offender presented somewhat differently to the court than he did to the media. Of course, that is a difficulty that the courts are faced with all the time. I consider that incident to be very interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that it indicates the very high degree of utility that exists in publication as a method of ensuring that the police can assist people in their local communities to apprehend offenders. Of those pictures that appeared on the front page of The West Australian , the overwhelming majority of the individuals were apprehended by police. The system now in place in this state means that those in the local community who have access to the pictures of individuals known to be banned from doing certain things that are notoriously peremptory to their offending in the local community, can alert the police when those people are seen to be doing the things that we know they should not be doing. The second thing that I think it demonstrated is that there is at present, in the absence of this legislation, a real limit to the capacity of the courts to deal with the 70 or 80 identified juveniles, and a similar number of senior offenders, who simply have not heard the message, and on whom we have expended an enormous amount of time and resources to try to move away from serial and repeat offending in this area, pursuant to which the community has just had enough. Those individuals will now likely find themselves subject to photographs on the department’s website, and photographs in their local communities, in their local shopping centres and on public transport—not at all dissimilar from the type that we saw on the front page of The West Australian . That will enable local communities to engage in the activity of protecting their person and property and it will lead to the apprehension of individuals who are offending against their local communities in a way that is no longer acceptable.
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.