❓ A Greens MP questions the Minister for Corrective Services about the parole system following critical comments from a Prisoners Review Board member. The Minister defends the parole system and the board member's right to express academic views.
AnsweredQoN 804Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
PAROLE — COMMENTS BY DEPUTY CHAIR OF THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD
I refer to the article titled “Abolish failing parole system: prisons expert” published in The West Australian of 3 August 2009. (1) Is the minister concerned about the opinion of the deputy chair of the Prisoners Review Board that the current parole system should be abolished? (2) Does the minister believe that a person holding this opinion and receiving remuneration as a member of the PRB is able to make objective decisions when considering parole applications? (3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN
I refer to the article titled “Abolish failing parole system: prisons expert” published in The West Australian of 3 August 2009. (1) Is the minister concerned about the opinion of the deputy chair of the Prisoners Review Board that the current parole system should be abolished? (2) Does the minister believe that a person holding this opinion and receiving remuneration as a member of the PRB is able to make objective decisions when considering parole applications? (3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(1) Is the minister concerned about the opinion of the deputy chair of the Prisoners Review Board that the current parole system should be abolished? (2) Does the minister believe that a person holding this opinion and receiving remuneration as a member of the PRB is able to make objective decisions when considering parole applications? (3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(2) Does the minister believe that a person holding this opinion and receiving remuneration as a member of the PRB is able to make objective decisions when considering parole applications? (3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
[See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years.
There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration.
If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration.
(1) Is the minister concerned about the opinion of the deputy chair of the Prisoners Review Board that the current parole system should be abolished? (2) Does the minister believe that a person holding this opinion and receiving remuneration as a member of the PRB is able to make objective decisions when considering parole applications? (3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(2) Does the minister believe that a person holding this opinion and receiving remuneration as a member of the PRB is able to make objective decisions when considering parole applications? (3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(3) What value does the minister place on parole supervision? (4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(4) What risks are involved in releasing prisoners without any supervision at the completion of their full sentence instead of releasing them on parole with supervision? (5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
(5) What strategies for parole does the minister have for reducing the number of prisoners in Western Australian prisons? HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
HON MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following response. It is rather lengthy, and I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
Leave granted. [See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
[See paper 1058.] The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
The following material was incorporated — 1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
1 . No. 2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
2. I am aware of Mr Hall’s academic views on the efficacy of parole as a traditional component of the Western Australian criminal justice system. I respectfully disagree with his views and indeed consider them to be very far from conventional practical thinking on the usefulness of parole, which is a system which exists in most Western common-law jurisdictions. Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years. 3. By way of broad legal summary it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community. This is to say the reason the State is able to compulsorily require an offender in the community to do certain acts, such as report or attend for programs or employment, or omit to do certain acts, such as ingest drugs, is that they are still subject to their head sentence and the terms of the parole order pursuant to which they were released from that sentence. Further, parole is a very important mechanism of enshrining a reward system for good prison behaviour without which management of prison populations would be difficult if not impossible and without the promise of which far fewer prisoners would have an incentive to enrol in and complete prison based programs. The parole system is of high value to me as Minister for Corrective Services. 4. As a corollary to the point raised above (that it is the parole system which gives the State the legal basis for supervision of offenders in the community), a traditional principle of our criminal justice system has been that once an offender has finished the finite length of the full term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced they are considered to have undertaken their punishment and upon release are for all intents and purposes free men or women not subject to further coercive restraints on their liberty. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as those provided for under the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) are additional constraints on an individual’s liberty imposed once they have served their finite term. There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration. 5. The delivery of offender programs and employment and skills based programs in prison and the delivery of similar programs combined with supervision whilst on parole are the cornerstone of the efforts to reduce recidivism.
Whilst disagreeing with Mr Hall’s views I have no difficulty in his expressing these views in his academic capacity and, further, do not consider that his having broad academic views about the comparative usefulness of parole and alternative systems in any way compromises his ability to discharge his obligations as a member of the prisoners review board, which he has done very well for many years.
There are obvious risks in the State not supervising and surveilling all offenders who have served the entirety of their finite term of imprisonment, just as there are risks in the State not engaging in increased levels of supervision and surveillance on all citizens than is presently the case. However, a central countervailing consideration has always been the extent to which it is desirable for the State to restrict the liberty of any person who has served the full term of imprisonment imposed upon by the court. In addition to this central countervailing consideration and weighing against the supervision of all offenders who are released after serving their finite term is the, no doubt enormous, costs that would be associated which such supervision and surveillance as well, as noted above, the management difficulties that would arise in prisons that would be associated with doing away with a system of early release pursuant to a parole order. If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration.
If by this question the greens are somewhat unexpectedly requesting the Government to consider extending the terms of the Dangerous Sex Offenders Act 2006 (WA) to allow for the surveillance and supervision of more offenders that are serving their finite term of imprisonment, as Attorney General, I will give that request some consideration.
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.