ANIMAL ACTIVISM —
MISCONDUCT RESTRAINING ORDERS
334. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Leader of the House representing
the Attorney General:
I
refer to an article that appeared on page 49 of The West Australian of
Tuesday, 26 March 2019, titled ''Vegan activists could face
restraining orders'', regarding possible consequences that vegan
activists may face in the future for trespassing and disrupting lawful
businesses. Recent offenders were fined amounts that will largely be covered by
crowdfunding. This effectively diminishes the penalties that were imposed. The
Attorney General has stated that the introduction of misconduct restraining
orders means that ''if they commit any act of trespass in the next five
years, they will be arrested, thrown in the cells and brought before the court''
where the magistrate can impose a misconduct restraining order.
(1) If the
magistrate decides to impose a misconduct restraining order, will only those
individuals who were charged be prevented from entering a property for five
years?
(2) If yes, given
that these individuals are invariably members of militant groups and
organisations with many members and supporters ready and willing to commit
civil disobedience, can the Attorney General advise how the proposed misconduct
restraining orders will protect primary producers from other members of
organisations likely to use guerrilla tactics to trespass on their properties?
Hon SUE
ELLERY replied:
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
(1) Yes.
(2) Under the
current provisions of the Restraining Orders Act 1997, a police officer may
apply for a misconduct restraining order on behalf of the public generally
under section 38(3). Amendments to the RO act to enhance the operation of MROs
in these circumstances are under development. The Attorney General is also
considering further reforms, which will be announced in due course.