❓ Ms Mettam questions the Premier regarding the implementation of mandatory electronic monitoring for FDV offenders, citing a specific case and alleging a broken promise. The Premier defends the government's actions, emphasizing the court's role in bail decisions and highlighting the government's commitment to combating FDV.
AnsweredQoN 635Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Family and domestic violence—electronic monitoring
635. Ms Libby Mettam to
the Premier:
I
refer to the Premier's media statement of 10 September 2024 in which he stated
that mandatory electronic monitoring for family and domestic violence (FDV) thugs
has been enshrined in law and the fact that the government has walked back that
ironclad commitment less than a year after its introduction.
(1) What steps is the Premier taking to ensure
that there is mandatory electronic monitoring in the state so that victims like
Kelly North are given the protections he promised?
(2) Will the Premier commit to reading the bail
hearing transcript, which includes the court's statement that there are
significant issues in relation to electronic monitoring?
I seek leave to
table for the remainder of today's sitting the relevant section of the bail
hearing transcript for Kelly North's accused offender.
(The paper was
tabled for the information of members.)
635. Ms Libby Mettam to
the Premier:
I
refer to the Premier's media statement of 10 September 2024 in which he stated
that mandatory electronic monitoring for family and domestic violence (FDV) thugs
has been enshrined in law and the fact that the government has walked back that
ironclad commitment less than a year after its introduction.
(1) What steps is the Premier taking to ensure
that there is mandatory electronic monitoring in the state so that victims like
Kelly North are given the protections he promised?
(2) Will the Premier commit to reading the bail
hearing transcript, which includes the court's statement that there are
significant issues in relation to electronic monitoring?
I seek leave to
table for the remainder of today's sitting the relevant section of the bail
hearing transcript for Kelly North's accused offender.
(The paper was
tabled for the information of members.)
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) The report of Ms North's
experiences are harrowing. I think any experience or account of family and
domestic violence shocks us to the core. It is an insidious, insidious disease in
our community, and it is one that we are determined
to stamp out. Mr Speaker, it is my expectation, and I expect the expectation of
the public as well, that if it is not safe to release someone into the
community, they should not be released. In August when this case went to the
Katanning Magistrates Court, the state prosecutors opposed bail in its entirety.
Further, at last week's bail hearing, state prosecutors opposed him residing in
Perth. I am informed that in this circumstance, electronic monitoring was not
mandatory because the accused was not subject to a family violence restraining
order (FVRO) before the alleged offence took place. But it is the court's
responsibility to assess whether someone should be released on bail and the
conditions it believes can be put in place to ensure public safety.
As we have always said,
electronic monitoring is one of the many tools that can be used to monitor
serial FDV offenders in addition to conditions like daily reporting to police,
home detention and so on. I stress again that this government has strengthened
the law to mandate monitoring for serial FDV offenders, and we continue to
resource tools like electronic monitoring so that the judiciary can apply them.
experiences are harrowing. I think any experience or account of family and
domestic violence shocks us to the core. It is an insidious, insidious disease in
our community, and it is one that we are determined
to stamp out. Mr Speaker, it is my expectation, and I expect the expectation of
the public as well, that if it is not safe to release someone into the
community, they should not be released. In August when this case went to the
Katanning Magistrates Court, the state prosecutors opposed bail in its entirety.
Further, at last week's bail hearing, state prosecutors opposed him residing in
Perth. I am informed that in this circumstance, electronic monitoring was not
mandatory because the accused was not subject to a family violence restraining
order (FVRO) before the alleged offence took place. But it is the court's
responsibility to assess whether someone should be released on bail and the
conditions it believes can be put in place to ensure public safety.
As we have always said,
electronic monitoring is one of the many tools that can be used to monitor
serial FDV offenders in addition to conditions like daily reporting to police,
home detention and so on. I stress again that this government has strengthened
the law to mandate monitoring for serial FDV offenders, and we continue to
resource tools like electronic monitoring so that the judiciary can apply them.
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.