[ad_1]
Controversial new laws banning violent offenders from entertainment areas are due to be introduced by the end of the year, but the WA government says relevant police guidelines will not be made public.
key point:
- Laws will enforce automatic bans of up to five years for violent offenders
- Police can also choose to exclude people for up to six months
- But there are fears that the vulnerable and disadvantaged will suffer
Legislation passed the state legislature late last night, Five “protected recreation areas” will be createdCovers Northbridge and most of Perth CBD, Freemantle, Scarborough, Hillarys and Mandurah.
These areas are marked PEP to commemorate the Nightclub manager Giuseppe “Pep” Raco, killed in unprovoked Northbridge punch attack 2020.
Anyone convicted of a range of violent and sexual offenses in PEP, including mixing alcohol in PEP, is automatically banned from all jurisdictions for five years after release from prison.
But there is a separate power that allows police to use “unlawful, anti-social, disruptive, offensive, indecent [or] “threat” behavior raised concerns, particularly about the potential for Aboriginal people to be unfairly targeted.
Regulations have not yet been finalized
More than two months after the legislation was first announced, Racing and Gaming Minister Tony Butti said there was still some work to be done before the law came into force, which he hoped would be done by the end of the year.
This work includes finalizing regulations to provide additional detail about the law, including specific areas that will become PEPs.
WA Police must also provide officers with guidelines on how to use the powers, although this information will not be released publicly.
“They are business matters that the police deal with and not all business matters are made public,” Mr Booti said.
“They are strict guidelines, [and] The police chief is pretty confident he can develop guidelines to make sure officers know when they have to act. “
Independent parliamentary commissioners will review the use of these powers after three years.
Mr Buti said the laws would come into effect if there was less violence in the jurisdiction and people felt safer.
“There’s no guarantee there won’t be some activity in those areas that shouldn’t be happening,” he told ABC Radio Perth.
“But we believe this is another tool police officers can have in their arsenal to ensure they police our entertainment precincts in an appropriate manner.”
Aboriginal legal services worried
Peter Collins of the Aboriginal Legal Service, one of the critics of the legislation, said it was “absolutely certain” Aboriginal people would be disproportionately affected.
“What police have to look at is only disorderly behaviour, or the ability to cause public disorder,” he told ABC Radio Perth.
“So that means drunk calling a police officer warrants a six-month deportation order.”
Mr Buti said the problem in this case was not just one person yelling.
“If the yelling is done in a very threatening manner, there’s no reason why the police shouldn’t deal with that person,” he said.
“It’s all about taking someone out of the jurisdiction, it’s all about prohibited behaviour. It’s not a penal code and it’s not a criminal offense per se.
“The whole point of the legislation is to ensure that people can enjoy the hospitality and energy of the entertainment precinct, and that there is no brutality.”
Fears ‘no security’ for vulnerable groups
As the legislation passed through Parliament, only two politicians voted against it — Brian Walker of the Cannabis Legalization Party and Green Party MP Brad Pettit.
Dr Pettit proposed a number of amendments that he believed would improve legal safeguards, but were rejected by both the government and the opposition.
He said one of his greatest fears was “an officer, from [an] Inspectors, may, without judicial oversight or any other checks and balances, remove any person from any recreation area for up to six months.”
“There is a real danger here that these laws could affect the weakest and most vulnerable in our communities in ways that the legislation has no intention of, and there are no safeguards in place to prevent that from happening.”
Concern about ‘misalignment’: minister
Mr Collins has similar concerns, notably the use of up to six-month bans on people with substance abuse problems, mental illness and cognitive impairment.
“And they’re the exact kind of people who are going to come into contact with the police, they’re likely to be misbehaving in the entertainment areas, but again, they’re the people who live in these entertainment areas,” he said.
“So how do you plan to counter them? People who are on the streets, with nowhere to go, if they’re excluded from Northbridge or the Perth CBD? Where does the government want them to live?”
Mr Buti said many of these concerns were “wrong”.
“It’s not about any particular group of people, it’s about the behavior of certain people,” he said.
“To that extent is color blindness. I don’t care where you’re from or your background, if you engage in activities that harm other people, the law should apply to you.”
The legislation allows people who are barred from PEP for a variety of reasons, including:
- if they live or work there;
- attend health or welfare services;
- to attend a religious ceremony;
- Carrying out activities as a trade union member;
- For Cultural Customs or Obligations.
If an officer has banned someone for more than a month, they can apply to the Commissioner of Liquor Licensing for a review of the decision.
[ad_2]
Source link
