❓ Question regarding the expected positive outcomes of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Community Court project, given high Indigenous reoffending rates. The Minister acknowledges the complexity and disappointing early results of the pilot program.
AnsweredQoN 146Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
KALGOORLIE–BOULDER COMMUNITY COURT
I refer to the recent announcement about the extension of and increased support for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court project. Given the high rates of Indigenous reoffending, can the minister inform the house about what positive outcomes he expects to see from the community court? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the recent announcement about the extension of and increased support for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court project. Given the high rates of Indigenous reoffending, can the minister inform the house about what positive outcomes he expects to see from the community court? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. It is difficult to give an answer to what positive outcomes we might expect. It is a hard question to answer because the government has extended the pilot program that the previous government put in place. We have done so notwithstanding that the early results from the program have not been particularly good. The member for Rockingham might want to start his stopwatch because I will try to give the Minister for Health a run for his money. This is a very complicated matter that warrants some consideration. Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. It is difficult to give an answer to what positive outcomes we might expect. It is a hard question to answer because the government has extended the pilot program that the previous government put in place. We have done so notwithstanding that the early results from the program have not been particularly good. The member for Rockingham might want to start his stopwatch because I will try to give the Minister for Health a run for his money. This is a very complicated matter that warrants some consideration. Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
I thank the member for his question. It is difficult to give an answer to what positive outcomes we might expect. It is a hard question to answer because the government has extended the pilot program that the previous government put in place. We have done so notwithstanding that the early results from the program have not been particularly good. The member for Rockingham might want to start his stopwatch because I will try to give the Minister for Health a run for his money. This is a very complicated matter that warrants some consideration. Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. It is difficult to give an answer to what positive outcomes we might expect. It is a hard question to answer because the government has extended the pilot program that the previous government put in place. We have done so notwithstanding that the early results from the program have not been particularly good. The member for Rockingham might want to start his stopwatch because I will try to give the Minister for Health a run for his money. This is a very complicated matter that warrants some consideration. Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
I thank the member for his question. It is difficult to give an answer to what positive outcomes we might expect. It is a hard question to answer because the government has extended the pilot program that the previous government put in place. We have done so notwithstanding that the early results from the program have not been particularly good. The member for Rockingham might want to start his stopwatch because I will try to give the Minister for Health a run for his money. This is a very complicated matter that warrants some consideration. Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Does this answer have an end as well as a beginning? Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I like to have a prefix and a suffix to my beginning, middle and end. Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Over the past decade or so we have seen an increase in the percentage rate of incarceration for Indigenous people. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous government, the percentage rate of Indigenous incarceration increased from 34 per cent to 41 per cent, which is a seven per cent increase during the term of the former government. That was despite a good deal of effort by the previous government to try to reduce the rate of recidivism and despite that government’s priorities, such as strategies to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. The former government undertook a range of projects, one of which was the pilot project for the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court, which I will call the community court. I can inform members who have not been to a Magistrates Court sentencing day or who have not seen the community court in operation that a normal run-of-the-mill Magistrates Court sentencing day has a production line feel to it. That is not to detract from the fact that there are expert people such as defence counsel, prosecutors, police prosecutors and magistrates dispensing justice in a fair and efficient way. Recently, a very high-profile lawyer described it to me as “shearing” and said that the Court of Appeal every now and then might need to put on some tar afterwards. Literally 30, 40 or 50 people are sentenced in a day. The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
The concept behind the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court was that if we slowed down and resource-intensified the sentencing process and involved the Aboriginal community elders and experts in the sentencing process itself and provided what we can call by way of summary “culturally sensitive sentencing”, we would reduce the rate of recidivism for those people who went through that system. This system is based on a system that has been running in some other states that have also experienced what we have experienced. When we looked at the data, the responses and results were not exactly what we might have expected. That goes to show that this is a very difficult issue to tackle. Although we can all talk in very positive terms about programs that might reduce the rate of reoffending, particularly for Indigenous people, simply mentioning the words “programs”, “innovative solutions” or “holistic approaches” is not a magical incantation that will make things better. The results demonstrate that it is very difficult to achieve. We commissioned an independent audit into the Aboriginal community court pilot program that ran during 2007 and 2008 to try to work out what was going on. Unfortunately, the court is very resource intensive and costs about $400 000 a year to maintain. In fact, on every criterion that we tested, the results were worse for a person going through the Aboriginal community court than for an Indigenous person who went through the general division of the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie and was sentenced. That was a surprising feature. It may interest the member for Warnbro to know that when I first got the results, I sent back the report and had the data unpacked and put back together. Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr P. Papalia : What period of time was that? Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It was the first two years of the court’s operation. The member for Warnbro might want to read the report because it is highly instructive. I asked the department to go back over the report. One of the things that was not anticipated was that the offenders who were going through the Aboriginal community court in Kalgoorlie generally exhibited a worse criminal history, on average, than the Indigenous offenders who went through the mainstream court. After a few conversations with employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service and also the magistrates in Kalgoorlie, it was put to me that the ALS was identifying people it thought stood a better chance of receiving a better sentence in the Aboriginal community court. I asked for the data to be unpacked and put back together. At paragraph 4.3 of the report, we looked at the individuals who went through the community court by the number of previous offences and the severity of the offences and matched that data against a comparable cohort in the general magistrates division who also had a similar offending history. Unfortunately, even on that measure the outcomes were worse in the Aboriginal community court. The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
The member for Kalgoorlie asked what results we might expect to see in the future. I am hoping for better results. However, the reality is that if results over another period do not show a measurable and decreasing rate of recidivism for Indigenous offenders, it may be that the $400 000 could be better spent elsewhere. Under the previous government, the court was set up with full-time equivalents who were meant to be dedicated to the court. For one reason or another, those FTEs drifted from their service to the court and did other things in and about the court system in Kalgoorlie. I have asked for those FTEs to be delivered straight back to the court and for them to do nothing other than service the court. I have also added another FTE from the Department of Corrective Services whose sole role will be to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people who are going through the community court are put in contact with the service providers in and about Kalgoorlie who actually deliver the programs that are aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism. We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
We will reassess the Aboriginal Kalgoorlie–Boulder Community Court after another period. That assessment can be done more quickly because we have worked out the ways in which the data can be used. We are trying to manage the individuals who go through the system so that there is a fairer cross-representation of what actually happens in the Magistrates Court. We will ensure that the FTEs who should have been working with the court do not drift from the court, and we will apply Aboriginal people to the programs. We will put on another FTE and give this court the best possible chance of success. In effect, the court is on notice. It must produce results, otherwise the money might be better spent to fund programs that are offender specific and concentrate on offenders who go through the normal mill of the Magistrates Court. To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
To date, the success rate of the program has been disappointing. I certainly do not blame the former government for its attempt. We can use the words “program”, “holistic delivery” and “innovative solutions” but they are not magical incantations that make the situation better. We must measure the performance and service delivery. So far, that measurement has demonstrated that this system has not come up to scratch, but we hope to get positive results with the addition of the extra FTEs.
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.