Prohibited Behaviour Orders Bill Speech

PROHIBITED BEHAVIOUR ORDERS BILL 2010
Discharge of Order and Referral to Standing Committee on Legislation — Motion
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [5.07 pm]: I rise, not unexpectedly, to support the motion to
send this bill to a committee. I noted the Leader of the House’s comments about why the Greens (WA) might be
particularly interested in sending this bill to a committee and the association that we do not live in the real world.
I invite the Leader of the House to examine a bit more carefully the learned comments and criticisms that have
been made in response to this bill and to consider that that opinion might be a little premature and that the
Greens are in fact looking at the real world, just as many people in Western Australia are looking at the
Prohibited Behaviour Orders Bill and pointing out quite realistically that it will not work. In fact, laws exist for
the behaviours on which the government is trying to impose this overly harsh law and order regime. I consider
the opportunity to refer this bill to a committee to look at carefully to be an opportunity that this government
should grasp.

The people of Western Australia have a reasonable expectation that any and all laws passed by Parliament will
be made on sound judgement, on reasonable evidence and with realistic budgets. I do not think that this bill does
that. I have more substantive comments to make about the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Bill, and they are based
largely on the comments that Hon Alison Xamon has already made.

The PRESIDENT: Order! On that note, I will clarify something for the member and the house. Hon Lynn
MacLaren is speaking to the referral motion, but because she has not yet spoken to the main question that the bill
be read a second time, this contribution is taken to be her contribution to the second reading debate, as well as
her comments on the referral motion. I just wanted to make sure that she knew that while she was on her feet and
that other members are aware of that. She can continue her comments on the substance of the bill as well.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Thank you, Mr President. That advice is much appreciated.
I will make some very brief comments about the reasons the Greens oppose the bill and the reasons we think a
committee may be able to improve it somewhat. The Aboriginal Legal Service has been mentioned several
times. I believe that a submission it made to the Western Australian Parliament has been tabled in this house, but
it was tabled some time ago. I want to focus on a couple of the points made in that submission as to why this bill
should be rejected. The Leader of the House mentioned that a green bill had gone out to the public for comment
and that the government had already considered some feedback. There were some refinements to the manner in
which the PBOs would be introduced. The initial ideas floated in the Liberal Party policy paper were not really
addressed. They basically stayed the same.

What we have before us is pretty much what the Liberal Party wanted to do in the beginning. The concerns that
the Aboriginal Legal Service has relate to the discriminatory and damaging impact that the legislation will have
on certain segments of the WA population. Many members have already mentioned the sectors that the ALS is
concerned about. They include Aboriginal people. Many of them will be discriminatorily impacted by this
legislation. The reasons why have been articulated by others. In addition, people who are suffering from mental
illness, young people and the homeless will be impacted by the legislation. We have a sincere responsibility to
speak up for these people in this house. We should not be passing laws that will impact on them indiscriminately
and in a very damaging way.

This bill is likely to increase the incarceration rates of Aboriginal people. It will allow people to be imprisoned
for minor offences. We already have misconduct restraining orders that will deal with many of the behaviours
that people are concerned about. In fact, the Aboriginal Legal Service has provided us with specific information
about misconduct restraining orders. I quote from the submission that has been tabled. Page 6 states —
Should the court consider it necessary, the court is empowered to prohibit the respondent from engaging
in particular behaviours including being in specified places or with specified people, communicating
with specified people, or engaging in specific behaviours at specified times or places.

Misconduct restraining orders, which are in the hands of the courts to impose, will manage quite a lot of these
behaviours but also have the added failsafe in that the courts can, in deciding whether to impose an MRO, take
into consideration particular situations the respondent might be in, such as difficulty with accommodation, or
under undue hardship as a result of the MRO being imposed. It is really important that the court has the ability to
weigh up those situations and decide whether to impose a misconduct order.

The Prohibited Behaviour Orders Bill is discriminatory and damaging. It will have an impact on certain sectors
that we really should be looking after. In particular, the Aboriginal Legal Service said that the bill has the scope
to breach civil liberties, including the right of association, which is a fairly fundamental right. I would hate to see
the prohibited behaviour orders used in that way in Western Australia because, as members know, we enjoy
quite a free and fair society and can associate with whomever we like. The submission states —
… no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that PBOs will reduce antisocial offending or that
existing laws cannot be used more effectively to achieve the alleged benefits of PBOs.

Hon Michael Mischin: Evidence will be available in a year’s time after it will be put in place.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: We look forward to seeing that evidence in committee. That is an appropriate place
in which that kind of evidence might come up. What was the foundation behind this and are there realistic
views —

Hon Michael Mischin: You said this about mandatory sentencing, and the assaults against police dropped
37 per cent.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I wanted to support the comments most recently made by Hon Col Holt about the
impact of this legislation on children. I quote from the ALS’s submission yet again. It states —
ALSWA submits that publication of a child’s details will ostracise the child and their family from the
community and hinder the ability of a family to deal with the offending of the young person. This will
not assist the child in developing a sense of social responsibility nor will it strengthen the child’s family
group.

In fact, the ALS stated that if this bill was to be considered by a committee, it should consider the following
recommendation —

That if publication of details of PBOs and their subjects are retained, the Bill be amended to
remove children from the default position of automatic publication and require an application for
publication of details with respect to the child to be brought before the court separately.

It is a very reasonable recommendation. It is a real world recommendation and it is a recommendation that the
Greens support. In fact, I will simply say that all the recommendations in the Aboriginal Legal Service of
Western Australia’s submission to our Parliament regarding the Prohibited Behaviour Orders Bill should be
considered by the committee and be accepted by this government. It is a reasonable ask. They are not
unreasonable asks. They are based on real world experience of the Aboriginal Legal Service, which has served
this community well for many years. I think we would do a disservice not to take them into account.
In summing up, the Greens are opposing this legislation. We cannot see how it can be amended. However, there
are some suggestions for amendment that would be worthy of consideration by a committee. Although I oppose
the bill, I support the motion to send it to a committee.