❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses concerns of primary producers regarding trespass by animal activists, focusing on available options, drone usage, and potential legislative changes. The Attorney General indicates existing laws are adequate but is considering amendments to the Restraining Orders Act.
AnsweredQoN 134Legislative Council
Asked
12 March 2019
Member
Portfolio
Leader of the House representing the Attorney General
QuestionView source ↗
ANIMAL ACTIVISM —
TRESPASS
134. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Leader of the House representing
the Attorney General:
As a result of recent incursions and
break-ins committed by vegan activists on the premises of primary producers, a number
of farmers expressed their concerns relating to their rights in defence when
presented with the situation of trespass.
(1) What options
are available to primary producers when confronted on their properties by these
trespassers?
(2) In the
event that activists use aerial drones to infiltrate or surveil properties or
landholdings, is there an entitlement for the owner or his agent to destroy or
disable the drone when it is flying over their property?
(3) Is the Attorney General considering any new
legislation, or amendments to existing legislation, that will protect the
rights of property owners, primary producers and managers from trespass by
animal activists?
(4) If no to (4), why not?
TRESPASS
134. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Leader of the House representing
the Attorney General:
As a result of recent incursions and
break-ins committed by vegan activists on the premises of primary producers, a number
of farmers expressed their concerns relating to their rights in defence when
presented with the situation of trespass.
(1) What options
are available to primary producers when confronted on their properties by these
trespassers?
(2) In the
event that activists use aerial drones to infiltrate or surveil properties or
landholdings, is there an entitlement for the owner or his agent to destroy or
disable the drone when it is flying over their property?
(3) Is the Attorney General considering any new
legislation, or amendments to existing legislation, that will protect the
rights of property owners, primary producers and managers from trespass by
animal activists?
(4) If no to (4), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. I think that last part of the question should be —
(4) If no to (3), why not?
So I will take that as being what
the member means.
(1) Incidents of
trespass should be reported to WA police. Further, an owner or occupier of land
may take civil action against the perpetrator for trespass or nuisance. It is,
however, recommended that independent legal advice be sought in respect of any
civil action before embarking on this course of action. It would also be open
to an occupier or owner of land to apply for a misconduct restraining order
against a trespasser under the provisions of the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
(2) No, in the
same way that an owner or agent cannot shoot down an aeroplane flying over his
or her property. Any concerns surrounding drone activity should be reported to
police and/or the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. By way of general
information, a person who damaged or destroyed a drone could be civilly liable
for trespass to goods, or criminally liable for an offence of criminal damage
under the Criminal Code. Acts with intent to prejudice the safe use of an
aircraft or unlawful interference with aircraft are also addressed in the
Criminal Code. Further, the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation
Safety Regulations 1998 of the commonwealth also govern the use of drones. The
commonwealth act and the regulations contain a number of offences relating to the
use of drones. There is also state legislation that relates to aircraft that
may cover drones. The Surveillance Devices Act 1998, for example, restricts the
use of optical surveillance devices to record private activities. The Criminal Code
contains provisions relating to trespass; and to using an object—for
example, a drone—to cause fear or alarm to a driver of a conveyance.
(3)–(4) The
Criminal Code adequately deals with the issue of trespass. I reiterate that any
allegations of trespass should be reported
to police. In such instances, the police can consider whether to charge the
alleged trespassers with trespass contrary to section 70A of the
Criminal Code, or other offences. The Attorney General is contemplating whether
any amendments need to be made to the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
some notice of the question. I think that last part of the question should be —
(4) If no to (3), why not?
So I will take that as being what
the member means.
(1) Incidents of
trespass should be reported to WA police. Further, an owner or occupier of land
may take civil action against the perpetrator for trespass or nuisance. It is,
however, recommended that independent legal advice be sought in respect of any
civil action before embarking on this course of action. It would also be open
to an occupier or owner of land to apply for a misconduct restraining order
against a trespasser under the provisions of the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
(2) No, in the
same way that an owner or agent cannot shoot down an aeroplane flying over his
or her property. Any concerns surrounding drone activity should be reported to
police and/or the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. By way of general
information, a person who damaged or destroyed a drone could be civilly liable
for trespass to goods, or criminally liable for an offence of criminal damage
under the Criminal Code. Acts with intent to prejudice the safe use of an
aircraft or unlawful interference with aircraft are also addressed in the
Criminal Code. Further, the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation
Safety Regulations 1998 of the commonwealth also govern the use of drones. The
commonwealth act and the regulations contain a number of offences relating to the
use of drones. There is also state legislation that relates to aircraft that
may cover drones. The Surveillance Devices Act 1998, for example, restricts the
use of optical surveillance devices to record private activities. The Criminal Code
contains provisions relating to trespass; and to using an object—for
example, a drone—to cause fear or alarm to a driver of a conveyance.
(3)–(4) The
Criminal Code adequately deals with the issue of trespass. I reiterate that any
allegations of trespass should be reported
to police. In such instances, the police can consider whether to charge the
alleged trespassers with trespass contrary to section 70A of the
Criminal Code, or other offences. The Attorney General is contemplating whether
any amendments need to be made to the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
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.