❓ Minister Porter outlines changes to community work supervision policy, aiming to improve completion rates and restore judicial confidence by enforcing stricter attendance rules and breach protocols.
AnsweredQoN 510Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
JUSTICE SYSTEM — COMMUNITY WORK
Community work is an important non-custodial option that helps to maintain the justice system in the electorate of Wanneroo. I understand that the minister is in the process of reconfiguring the manner in which community work is supervised by his department. Is the minister able to elaborate on the changes he is contemplating? Mr C.C. PORTER
Community work is an important non-custodial option that helps to maintain the justice system in the electorate of Wanneroo. I understand that the minister is in the process of reconfiguring the manner in which community work is supervised by his department. Is the minister able to elaborate on the changes he is contemplating? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. As at the end of this financial year a very different system of policy will be applied to community work in this jurisdiction to that which has applied in the past 10 years. It is absolutely critical to helping solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in sentencing and the prison population. Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. As at the end of this financial year a very different system of policy will be applied to community work in this jurisdiction to that which has applied in the past 10 years. It is absolutely critical to helping solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in sentencing and the prison population. Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
I thank the member for his question. As at the end of this financial year a very different system of policy will be applied to community work in this jurisdiction to that which has applied in the past 10 years. It is absolutely critical to helping solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in sentencing and the prison population. Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. As at the end of this financial year a very different system of policy will be applied to community work in this jurisdiction to that which has applied in the past 10 years. It is absolutely critical to helping solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in sentencing and the prison population. Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
I thank the member for his question. As at the end of this financial year a very different system of policy will be applied to community work in this jurisdiction to that which has applied in the past 10 years. It is absolutely critical to helping solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in sentencing and the prison population. Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within 24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.
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.