❓ The Attorney General updates the house on the outcomes of recent law and order legislation, highlighting increased sentence lengths and the impact of mandatory penalties for assaults on police, while addressing criticisms from the opposition.
AnsweredQoN 876Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LAW AND ORDER INITIATIVES
As the parliamentary year draws to a close, can the Attorney General please update the house on any result that has started to flow from government legislative law and order initiatives passed over the course of the past 12 months? Mr C.C. PORTER
As the parliamentary year draws to a close, can the Attorney General please update the house on any result that has started to flow from government legislative law and order initiatives passed over the course of the past 12 months? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. It is a timely question as the parliamentary year draws to a close, and it also offers me the opportunity to get rid of a range of graphs that I have not had a chance to use over the course of the last year, so if people will bear with me, we will get through them one by one. In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. It is a timely question as the parliamentary year draws to a close, and it also offers me the opportunity to get rid of a range of graphs that I have not had a chance to use over the course of the last year, so if people will bear with me, we will get through them one by one. In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
I thank the member for his question. It is a timely question as the parliamentary year draws to a close, and it also offers me the opportunity to get rid of a range of graphs that I have not had a chance to use over the course of the last year, so if people will bear with me, we will get through them one by one. In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. It is a timely question as the parliamentary year draws to a close, and it also offers me the opportunity to get rid of a range of graphs that I have not had a chance to use over the course of the last year, so if people will bear with me, we will get through them one by one. In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
I thank the member for his question. It is a timely question as the parliamentary year draws to a close, and it also offers me the opportunity to get rid of a range of graphs that I have not had a chance to use over the course of the last year, so if people will bear with me, we will get through them one by one. In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
In The Sunday Times earlier this year there was a list of pre-election and post-election commitments of the Liberal–National government on law and order and it gave us a tick every time one was introduced. There were quite a few, such as scrapping truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory sentences for people who assault police. For pre-election commitments, it gave us five out of 10. This year we have also introduced shield laws for journalists, prostitution law reform and a public sex offender register, which increases our score from five out of 11 to eight out of 11, which is quite good. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I know you often enjoy the occasion. We are all enjoying the occasion, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Members, I appreciate that potentially this is the last question time for this year, but I would like to be able to get through it in a reasonably short period so that other things might happen. I give you the call again, Attorney General. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, thank you. The member for Mandurah is confusing the two portfolios. We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
We have also introduced anti-association laws — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Members! I would like to hear some more questions. There are people in this place who want to ask them, I am sure. Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Again, we have also introduced anti-association laws, manslaughter law reform and double jeopardy law reform, which lifts us up on post-election promises from six out of 12 to nine out of 12. We still have a year to go, but I think it is obviously very important to consider how some of those initiatives, particularly the earlier law reforms initiatives, have actually taken hold and whether they are producing a result. The first one I make mention of is truth in sentencing. Members will recall that they were the Labor laws passed in 2003 that gave an automatic one-third discount off the penalty—the sentence—for every single crime in the state of Western Australia. They were the laws that a judge described as making a mockery of every maximum penalty in the state. When we removed that one-third discount, members opposite said two things and we said two things. The two things that we said were that this will mean in the worst cases that the maximum is now actually the maximum, and also, importantly, we said that this will have an upward pressure on all sentencing at all levels. Members opposite said two things. They said it would not work and it would not work. We have now got the data in and we have compared all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences from 2007 and 2008, before these laws, and all the District Court and Supreme Court sentences for 2009 and 2010, after these laws. Maximums are available and, absolutely remarkably—or perhaps not remarkably in the view of this government—there has been a seven per cent increase in the overall sentence length since these laws were passed. They have done exactly what the government said they would do and exactly what the people of Western Australia demanded they do. Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Members will recall mandatory penalties for assaults on police. We were told by the Australian Lawyers Alliance that it would cause injustice on a daily basis. We were told by members opposite — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mindarie, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We were told by members opposite that the laws would not have a deterrent effect. They said that the deterrent effect would in fact be eyewash. In the first year — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : You are not assisting the cause, member for Mindarie. I formally call you to order for the second time today. Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In the first year there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of assaults on police. In the first half of this year there was a further 13 per cent decrease, with the legislation, as the member for Mindarie points out, being very cautiously and appropriately used. The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The next thing is prohibited behaviour orders. We had the first prohibited behaviour order issued by a magistrate in Geraldton. We were told by members opposite that this was a terrible law and that it would affect people who did not truly deserve a prohibited behaviour order. The gentleman in question, who has basically been banned from going into the centre of the main street of Geraldton and to the water park at the foreshore, is a person who had over 100 different court outcomes on his criminal record, including — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : And if he does break it, he will face a serious penalty for breaking it. That is the type of protection that the people of Geraldton have been looking for. Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Finally — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
The SPEAKER : Member for Riverton, welcome back again. I formally call you to order for the second time. Member for Armadale, I think you know where you are at this point. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Member for Mindarie, you are also called to order for the third time today. I would prefer that you can all stay in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Finally—although I do sometimes say “finally” when I still have 20 minutes to go—I would like to mention the Prisoners Review Board. We know as a matter of fact that there were 26 608 fewer offences in the last financial year of this government compared with the last financial year of Labor. One of the reasons for that is that we have taken a far more stringent approach to the granting of parole, and also to the policing of people who are on parole. In fact, a very interesting report was put out last week by the Auditor General on the management of offenders on parole, which barely raised a mention in this place but certainly deserves to do so. Does anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole in 2004 got parole? Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr P. Abetz : Ninety per cent. Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Go higher than 90 per cent. In 2004, under the previous government, the percentage of prisoners who were eligible for parole and who applied and got it was 100 per cent, which raises an interesting question. There it is, Mr Speaker; there was 100 per cent under Labor in 2004, and that is the percentage of prisoners now being granted parole who are eligible. Why have a parole system if 100 per cent of people who are eligible get parole? Also, fascinatingly, in that report, the number of prisoners per 100 who were being breached under the previous Labor government in 2006 was one. That has now quadrupled up to an average of about four, because this government is actually policing people who are on parole. If people are granted parole on conditions to not harass others and to not consume alcohol or drugs, they are tested and policed, and that has resulted in 26 000 fewer offences under this government, and that is a good year’s work.
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.