❓ Question regarding the supervision of juvenile offenders in a rape case and the treatment of the victim's family. The Minister defends the department's actions and criticizes the previous government's record.
AnsweredQoN 643Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the statements made by a Department of Justice officer on Channel Seven News last night about the supervision of two youths convicted of the horrendous rape and assault of an elderly woman. The officer stated that she was very satisfied with how the case has been managed. (1) How many times was one of the juveniles picked up at his father’s home; and was he living at his father’s home? (2) In light of the fact that it took at least several weeks to apprehend the offenders once they had breached their parole, is the minister similarly very satisfied with how the case has been managed? (3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(1) How many times was one of the juveniles picked up at his father’s home; and was he living at his father’s home? (2) In light of the fact that it took at least several weeks to apprehend the offenders once they had breached their parole, is the minister similarly very satisfied with how the case has been managed? (3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(2) In light of the fact that it took at least several weeks to apprehend the offenders once they had breached their parole, is the minister similarly very satisfied with how the case has been managed? (3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(1) How many times was one of the juveniles picked up at his father’s home; and was he living at his father’s home? (2) In light of the fact that it took at least several weeks to apprehend the offenders once they had breached their parole, is the minister similarly very satisfied with how the case has been managed? (3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(2) In light of the fact that it took at least several weeks to apprehend the offenders once they had breached their parole, is the minister similarly very satisfied with how the case has been managed? (3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(3) Is the minister also very satisfied with the appalling attitude that both she and her staff have displayed towards the family of the victim, who feel that they have been treated with disinterest and insensitivity? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
(1)-(3) With regards to whether the said offender was living with his father, the advice I have received is that he was not living with his father, and that the person who was managing him was confident that he was living at other premises and had evidence that he was living at those other premises. The member for Nedlands is suggesting that the supervising officers were not doing their job. The system under which these officers operate contrasts greatly with the system that was in place under the Opposition. When the coalition was in government, the officers had such high case loads that they did not monitor offenders at all. Under the Opposition’s regime, which had 55 fewer officers than our regime, officers would not have known whether people were in breach of their release conditions. A proper system of supervision was not in place. That is outlined in the Auditor General’s 2001 report. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding and resources into this area to ensure that proper supervision occurs. Proper supervision does occur, and that was certainly the advice Ms Jackie Tang gave on television yesterday. On 13 September - well before the member for Nedlands became involved in the matter - one of the officers made the Supervised Release Review Board aware of a minor breach. The Supervised Release Review Board considered that matter on 15 September and, on that basis, did not breach the individual. It chose to provide him with the advice that furthering of the breach action would result in him being formally breached. If he did not obey the conditions of the supervised release order to the letter of the law, he would in future be breached. The officer on a later occasion drew a further minor breach to their attention, and on that basis the breach action was taken. This is the contrast. We actually had staff at the Department of Justice who were vigilant and were supervising these offenders. These offenders, I would add, were breached not because they offended against the law in any way, but because they did not strictly adhere to their release conditions. Action was taken by the supervising officer as early as 13 September. This was drawn to the board’s attention. It is up to the board only to decide what action it will take, and the board determined to advise the individual that any further breach of the conditions would result in the breach action being taken. That action was taken. With respect to the question regarding whether I am happy with my role and my staff’s role, my staff contacted the department on a number of occasions and pursued this matter. They certainly monitored the actions of the Victim Notification Register in that office, and sought feedback on a number of occasions on how the matter was being progressed in terms of both the professional review practice taking place and ensuring that the Victim Notification Register was in contact with the victim’s family. Where we fell down in my office, if we have fallen down, was not in not ensuring that the offenders were being properly monitored or that the Victim Notification Register was doing the job in terms of supporting the victim’s family, but in not letting the victims know that we had taken these actions. If we had let them know, I am sure it might have alleviated some of their concerns. I am certainly aware that there have been occasions on which the Victim Notification Register has been complimented for liaising with the family in the way that occurred. However, if we still had the system that was in place prior to 2001, there would have been a complete lack of supervision and nothing to tell the victim, and the victim would not even have known that a breach had occurred.
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.