❓ The Attorney General outlines changes to the Restraining Orders Act to better protect vulnerable people from domestic violence, highlighting alarming statistics and government action.
AnsweredQoN 380Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
RESTRAINING ORDERS — legislatiVE REFORM
I note with interest the announced changes to restraining orders over the weekend. I am sure all my former police colleagues would be very interested in, and applaud the government for, taking what I believe to be a step in the right direction to protect some of our most vulnerable people. Can the Attorney General please explain what these changes mean for the police service and those who might be at risk of violence in our society? Mr C.C. PORTER
I note with interest the announced changes to restraining orders over the weekend. I am sure all my former police colleagues would be very interested in, and applaud the government for, taking what I believe to be a step in the right direction to protect some of our most vulnerable people. Can the Attorney General please explain what these changes mean for the police service and those who might be at risk of violence in our society? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. As the member would know, domestic violence is one of the most serious criminal justice problems facing the state. I think there is an arguable case that it is perhaps the most serious single criminal justice problem facing the state of Western Australia. Indeed, when I was listening to the police minister’s answer to a question about crime statistics, I heard an interjection—in fact there may have been more than one—asking whether the total crime figures reported by police include domestic assaults. In fact they do. The police total reported crime figure has long counted all assaults but there is no distinction between domestic assaults and assaults that have occurred outside a domestic scenario. We have been able to unpack that data very recently. We have not just done it for the past year; we have unpacked it for the last 10 years. The data shows that the number of assaults has been growing in WA. It has been one area that neither side of politics has been able to make great impact on. We long had a suspicion that one reason for that was that inside the total assaults figure, the number of domestic assaults was growing very rapidly. That data shows that is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years. I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. As the member would know, domestic violence is one of the most serious criminal justice problems facing the state. I think there is an arguable case that it is perhaps the most serious single criminal justice problem facing the state of Western Australia. Indeed, when I was listening to the police minister’s answer to a question about crime statistics, I heard an interjection—in fact there may have been more than one—asking whether the total crime figures reported by police include domestic assaults. In fact they do. The police total reported crime figure has long counted all assaults but there is no distinction between domestic assaults and assaults that have occurred outside a domestic scenario. We have been able to unpack that data very recently. We have not just done it for the past year; we have unpacked it for the last 10 years. The data shows that the number of assaults has been growing in WA. It has been one area that neither side of politics has been able to make great impact on. We long had a suspicion that one reason for that was that inside the total assaults figure, the number of domestic assaults was growing very rapidly. That data shows that is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years. I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
I thank the member for his question. As the member would know, domestic violence is one of the most serious criminal justice problems facing the state. I think there is an arguable case that it is perhaps the most serious single criminal justice problem facing the state of Western Australia. Indeed, when I was listening to the police minister’s answer to a question about crime statistics, I heard an interjection—in fact there may have been more than one—asking whether the total crime figures reported by police include domestic assaults. In fact they do. The police total reported crime figure has long counted all assaults but there is no distinction between domestic assaults and assaults that have occurred outside a domestic scenario. We have been able to unpack that data very recently. We have not just done it for the past year; we have unpacked it for the last 10 years. The data shows that the number of assaults has been growing in WA. It has been one area that neither side of politics has been able to make great impact on. We long had a suspicion that one reason for that was that inside the total assaults figure, the number of domestic assaults was growing very rapidly. That data shows that is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years. I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. As the member would know, domestic violence is one of the most serious criminal justice problems facing the state. I think there is an arguable case that it is perhaps the most serious single criminal justice problem facing the state of Western Australia. Indeed, when I was listening to the police minister’s answer to a question about crime statistics, I heard an interjection—in fact there may have been more than one—asking whether the total crime figures reported by police include domestic assaults. In fact they do. The police total reported crime figure has long counted all assaults but there is no distinction between domestic assaults and assaults that have occurred outside a domestic scenario. We have been able to unpack that data very recently. We have not just done it for the past year; we have unpacked it for the last 10 years. The data shows that the number of assaults has been growing in WA. It has been one area that neither side of politics has been able to make great impact on. We long had a suspicion that one reason for that was that inside the total assaults figure, the number of domestic assaults was growing very rapidly. That data shows that is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years. I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
I thank the member for his question. As the member would know, domestic violence is one of the most serious criminal justice problems facing the state. I think there is an arguable case that it is perhaps the most serious single criminal justice problem facing the state of Western Australia. Indeed, when I was listening to the police minister’s answer to a question about crime statistics, I heard an interjection—in fact there may have been more than one—asking whether the total crime figures reported by police include domestic assaults. In fact they do. The police total reported crime figure has long counted all assaults but there is no distinction between domestic assaults and assaults that have occurred outside a domestic scenario. We have been able to unpack that data very recently. We have not just done it for the past year; we have unpacked it for the last 10 years. The data shows that the number of assaults has been growing in WA. It has been one area that neither side of politics has been able to make great impact on. We long had a suspicion that one reason for that was that inside the total assaults figure, the number of domestic assaults was growing very rapidly. That data shows that is precisely what has been happening over the past 10 years. I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
I make this comment about those statistics: they raise the classic problem about crime statistics; that is, we do not know whether we are finding more of a relatively stable number of offences or whether the number of offences is growing. It is quite obviously the case that domestic violence is now treated very seriously and far differently, thankfully, from how it was treated 10 or 15 years ago. I suspect it is a bit of both in terms of why those statistics are growing so much. We are not only recording and investigating these offences more heavily, but also I suspect there is a prevalence of them. The reason we have taken some very serious and significant action is that this is a persistent and serious problem. To give the house some idea of how pervasive the problem of domestic assaults is, there were 30 000 reports of domestic assaults last year, and 12 000 of those reports involved the police considering that there was the commission of a criminal offence. Twenty per cent of all homicides in this jurisdiction have their genesis in a domestic assault. Domestic assault disproportionately affects Aboriginal women. A very high proportion of all domestic assaults in this jurisdiction are perpetrated on Aboriginal women, and, absolutely staggeringly, an Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault is 45 times more likely to be hospitalised because of that assault than a non-Aboriginal woman who is the victim of an assault. I think that is quite staggering. It means that when an Aboriginal woman is the victim of a domestic assault, it is a very serious assault, often involving a weapon, and a very violent assault. The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
The Restraining Orders Act came into play in 1997. There were significant and very good amendments to that act by the Labor Party in 2004. A statutory review was commenced in 2008. There were 14 recommendations. This government has adopted all of them—and has gone further. The three key changes, or three very significant changes, that this government will be making to the Restraining Orders Act grow out of what I will call the 27 per cent statistic. For the benefit of everyone present, I explain that statistic in this way. We have statistics that show that only 27 per percent of offenders who have breached a restraining order four times actually receive a term of imprisonment. So that we can all be clear on what that means, a person can be in fear of their safety and have a restraining order imposed upon their assailant. However, if the order is breached and the victim complains to police and makes a statement and gives evidence and the person, the assailant, is charged and convicted again and then breaches the order again, and then the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, and the person is charged and convicted again and breaches the order again, then at that point, after four times, only 27 per cent of the male individuals who breach the orders face a term of imprisonment. The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
The government has moved to repair that situation. The three very important changes are these. Firstly, in the case of a person who has committed and has been convicted of two offences involving breaches of a restraining order within a two-year period, the court will be told through the legislation that it must impose a term of imprisonment unless extraordinary circumstances make it clearly unjust to do so. If such circumstances exist, the court must give specific written reasons explaining why it has not imposed a term of imprisonment after that second breach. Secondly, and also very importantly, we will change the act so that domestic assault will be classed as a serious offence. This will have the effect that police will always be able to arrest once the complaint is made, rather than proceed by summons. For a long time in this jurisdiction, a domestic assault has proceeded by summons, rather than by arrest on the spot. The third very important change is that the police will have the ability to give a 72-hour order against a person complained of in respect of these matters. That means that the perpetrator has to leave the home or residence for 72 hours, and that order can be given without the consent of the victim. In other jurisdictions that have used such an order we have seen that, rather than the 24-hour order that exists at the moment—I refer to a case without consent—72 hours is the appropriate time needed to take the heat out of a situation and to deflect the possibility of further assaults. This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
This is good legislation. My view is that this is some of the most significant legislation that this government will bring into the house. It will impact on a really terrible criminal justice problem. I look forward to the second reading debate. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I do not want to go back to the problem that we had last question time, but the Attorney General has addressed a very serious issue. He has taken over seven minutes. I would put to you that you might like to counsel him that such an important matter be dealt with as a ministerial statement or short ministerial statement, rather than take up more than seven minutes of question time on an important issue, which was listened to in silence because of its importance. However, that is really not something that standing orders suggest question time should be used for. The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
The SPEAKER : I thank the member for Balcatta. It is not a point of order, but I recognise what he is saying and I take his advice.
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.