❓ Mr. Miles asks about measures to protect children from sex offenders. Mr. Johnson responds by outlining the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2011 and provides case studies highlighting the need for the legislation.
AnsweredQoN 862Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SEX OFFENDERS — child PROTECTION
There have been several media reports throughout the year regarding community concern about convicted child sex offenders living close to their victims as well as schools. Can the minister please outline to the house the measures the Liberal–National government is taking to protect the safety of Western Australian children? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
There have been several media reports throughout the year regarding community concern about convicted child sex offenders living close to their victims as well as schools. Can the minister please outline to the house the measures the Liberal–National government is taking to protect the safety of Western Australian children? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. Certainly, today I introduced the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend the act to remedy issues currently faced by WA Police in obtaining information on and monitoring paedophiles who are subject to child protection prohibition orders. The purpose of a child protection prohibition order, or CPPO, is for the court to prohibit certain types of conduct that have been demonstrated by the individual offender to be precursors to his or her offending. Although that might be good in theory, and is what has been happening in the past, police have faced a huge number of problems in carrying that out and making it effective. I would like to share with the house one or two actual scenarios in which the police have found it necessary for us to amend the act to give the police more power to be able to successfully monitor offenders and prohibit them from doing certain things. These are actual case studies. First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: I thank the member for the question. Certainly, today I introduced the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend the act to remedy issues currently faced by WA Police in obtaining information on and monitoring paedophiles who are subject to child protection prohibition orders. The purpose of a child protection prohibition order, or CPPO, is for the court to prohibit certain types of conduct that have been demonstrated by the individual offender to be precursors to his or her offending. Although that might be good in theory, and is what has been happening in the past, police have faced a huge number of problems in carrying that out and making it effective. I would like to share with the house one or two actual scenarios in which the police have found it necessary for us to amend the act to give the police more power to be able to successfully monitor offenders and prohibit them from doing certain things. These are actual case studies. First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
I thank the member for the question. Certainly, today I introduced the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend the act to remedy issues currently faced by WA Police in obtaining information on and monitoring paedophiles who are subject to child protection prohibition orders. The purpose of a child protection prohibition order, or CPPO, is for the court to prohibit certain types of conduct that have been demonstrated by the individual offender to be precursors to his or her offending. Although that might be good in theory, and is what has been happening in the past, police have faced a huge number of problems in carrying that out and making it effective. I would like to share with the house one or two actual scenarios in which the police have found it necessary for us to amend the act to give the police more power to be able to successfully monitor offenders and prohibit them from doing certain things. These are actual case studies. First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: I thank the member for the question. Certainly, today I introduced the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend the act to remedy issues currently faced by WA Police in obtaining information on and monitoring paedophiles who are subject to child protection prohibition orders. The purpose of a child protection prohibition order, or CPPO, is for the court to prohibit certain types of conduct that have been demonstrated by the individual offender to be precursors to his or her offending. Although that might be good in theory, and is what has been happening in the past, police have faced a huge number of problems in carrying that out and making it effective. I would like to share with the house one or two actual scenarios in which the police have found it necessary for us to amend the act to give the police more power to be able to successfully monitor offenders and prohibit them from doing certain things. These are actual case studies. First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
I thank the member for the question. Certainly, today I introduced the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend the act to remedy issues currently faced by WA Police in obtaining information on and monitoring paedophiles who are subject to child protection prohibition orders. The purpose of a child protection prohibition order, or CPPO, is for the court to prohibit certain types of conduct that have been demonstrated by the individual offender to be precursors to his or her offending. Although that might be good in theory, and is what has been happening in the past, police have faced a huge number of problems in carrying that out and making it effective. I would like to share with the house one or two actual scenarios in which the police have found it necessary for us to amend the act to give the police more power to be able to successfully monitor offenders and prohibit them from doing certain things. These are actual case studies. First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
First, I will refer to offender A, who had previously lived opposite a Kalgoorlie primary school. He met his victim in the playground area attached to the school and offended against the victim at that location. Upon release from custody, the offender returned to the same address, which was opposite the school. The victim was a student still in attendance at that school. Under current law, WA Police is unable to prohibit a person from residing at their home, be it mortgaged or a long-term family home. The problem is compounded by the fact that the police have to wait until the offender is in the community and thus a risk—that is, the offender is already back in the house or hostel, et cetera, before the police are able to seek to prohibit them from residing there. The offender reporting bill will remedy that situation because one month before an offender is released from jail the police will be able to apply to the court to prevent the person from returning to the same address where they committed their heinous crimes against children and the victims might be attending a school opposite the property or living two or three houses down the street. This is of course a terribly traumatic event for not only the victims, but their families. We are talking about children. Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
Let me give members other instances in which there have been problems. In some instances, a significant precursor to a reported offender’s behaviour is the consumption or drugs and/or alcohol. Currently the court may order, as part of the terms of a CPPO, that an offender refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol. However, it is near impossible for police to enforce such an order. In another case study, offender B is prohibited from consuming alcohol. As there is no power in the act for police officers to test him for compliance with his order, the only option WA Police has to monitor his compliance with the order is to conduct surveillance to see if they can observe the offender consuming alcohol. Unless offender B is observed consuming alcohol or comes to the attention of police while notably affected by alcohol—such as a traffic stop or unruly behaviour et cetera—WA Police is unable to ensure the offender is complying with his order. I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
I would like to provide one more case study because I think it highlights the need for the legislation introduced today. Offender C was previously convicted of sexually penetrating girls and was prohibited from accessing the internet by virtue of a CPPO. It was subsequently found that offender C had been accessing the internet for at least six months whilst his CPPO was in place. Apparently he had been visiting rape sex sites and by chance WA Police happened to stumble on this internet usage as a result of an investigation into an unrelated matter, otherwise it would have carried on undetected. In future, the police will be able to enter the premises and check the computer to ensure they have the passwords and necessary things to enable them to monitor exactly what the offender is accessing on the internet. We have to be on the ball these days because there are various things, such as iCloud, in which these people can hide the material they want to access and view. These despicable beings—I will not call them human beings, because they are not—want to access child pornography and keep it hidden so that they are not caught. We are determined to take every step that we can to catch these individuals and to put them where they belong.
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.