Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[Applause]
>> Thank you John and ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to today's important forum, the opportunity
to continue to raise this important issue.
I also acknowledge the indigenous owners
of the land and Noongar people.
I'd particularly like to acknowledge several state
members of Parliament that are here with us today;
the Honourable Wendy Duncan, MLC Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for Regional Development and Lands,
Margaret Quirk, MLA Shadow Minister for Police, Ben Wyatt,
MLA Shadow Treasurer, John Quigley,
MLA Shadow Attorney General and Paul Papalia,
MLA Shadow Minister for Corrective Services.
I'm also aware we have people from the Minister
for Police's Office and also
from the Office of Peter Timley, MLA.
There are people here
from several state government agencies including the
Department of Corrective Services, the Department
of the Attorney General, the Department of Sport
and Recreation as well as staff from the School of Law
and Justice at Edith Cowan University.
Welcome. And students from St. George's College;
so it's terrific to have such a diverse group of people here.
In addition we also have people
from the Legal Profession Youth Services
and Trade Unions just to name a few.
So, we have a vital topic to discuss today.
The fact that we have such a wide range
of interested people attending today's forum is testament
to the quality of the speaker and, of course,
for the importance of the topic that he is addressing.
I'm sure there's no more important challenge
for our society than ensuring a positive future
for our young people.
A key part of the challenge is
to provide better education opportunities.
Of course, there's a key role for all universities and one
that at Curtin University we take very seriously.
We have the highest number of higher education services
in Western Australia at Curtin University
and also the highest number
of indigenous students at Curtin University.
We have a Centre for Aboriginal Studies, which offers enabling
and bridging programs.
So our challenge is to try to attract students
from non-traditional backgrounds,
students who would traditionally not have the preparation
and the opportunity to come to university
to join studies at university.
So, whether they're indigenous people, people from the remote
and regional areas or people that have come
from systemic disadvantage, we certainly work very hard both
at Curtin and the universities more generally
in Western Australia to provide support to these people.
Curtin University has research in a number of areas associated
with youth issues, especially in relation to social justice,
employment and human rights.
Today's forum follows on from one given in June
by the attorney general and the Minister
for Corrective Services, the Honourable Christian Porter
on a similar theme entitled,
Two and a Half Views on Criminal Justice.
It was a particularly thought-provoking address
and I'm sure today's speaker will also be very interesting.
The Honourable Wayne Martin was appointed
as Western Australia's 13th Chief Justice
on the first of May 2006.
He joined the independent bar in 1988
and was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1993.
From 2001 to 2003 he took on the role
of counsel assisting the HIH Royal Commission in Sydney.
The Chief Justice was President of the WA Bar Association
between 1996 and 1999 and Chairman
of the West Australian Law Reform Commission from 1996
to 2001 when the Commission completed the review
of the criminal and civil justice system
in Western Australia.
He was also a member of the Council of the Law Society
of Western Australia and was President of the Society
at the time he was appointed to his current office.
In 2007 the Chief Justice was awarded the WA Citizen
of the Year for the professions.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Chief Justice.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you very much Vice Chancellor.
It's a pleasure and an honour to have been invited
to address this breakfast forum organised
by the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy.
I'm very flattered that so many of you have found time
in your busy schedules to come and listen to me speak
and I'd also like to acknowledge the many distinguished guests
referred to by the Vice Chancellor.
Now like previous speakers I'd like to commence my remarks
by acknowledging traditional owners of the lands
on which we meet the Noongar and people
and by paying our respects to their elders past and present.
I've chosen juvenile justice as the topic
for my address this morning not only
because of the obvious importance
of public policy issues relating to juvenile justice,
but also because it has a connection with the person
after whom the university
and the Public Policy Institute were named, namely John Curtin.
Curtin was a strong advocate for the rights of women and children
and pursued that theme through much of his political career.
In 1927 his was appointed
to a Commonwealth Government Royal Commission,
appointed to inquire into the notion of child endowment
or family allowances and with another commissioner he wrote a
strong minority report, recommending the creation
of the Child Endowment Scheme.
So, there is a connection with John Curtin and my topic.
There are a lot of cliches to which one could turn
to emphasise the importance of public policy relating
to issues concerning children.
Perhaps the most obvious is children are our future.
But it seems to me that the proposition is so trite
that it doesn't really need any embellishment by a cliche.
Children are by nature undisciplined and unruly
and I would cite my five children as exhibit A
in support of that proposition.
The techniques appropriately applied to condition children
to life in an organised society and discussion
about those techniques is as old as organised society itself.
And my colleague, Judge Dennis Reynolds has pointed
out that [inaudible] and Socrates spoke at length
about the problems of disciplining children
and conditioning them to life in an organised society.
Many of you would have heard the expression
"Spare the rod and spoil the child."
That was written as long ago as 1664 by Samuel Butler.
Rather more extreme views on the desirability
of disciplining children have been expressed
from time to time.
Edgar Allan Poe wrote, "Children are never too tender
to be whipped.
Like tough beef steaks the more you beat them the more tender
they become."
Don Marquis was this American humorist, not the philosopher.
Don Marquis wrote, "If a child shows himself
to be incorrigible, he should be decently and quietly beheaded
at the age of twelve, lest he grow to maturity, marry,
and perpetuate his kind."
And W.C. Fields as you may know was not noted
for his rapport with children.
He observed that children should neither be seen nor heard
from ever again.
But then he later protested, "I like children
if they're properly cooked."
Now, there's nothing novel
about public attention being focused on juvenile justice.
There have been times within living memory
within this state upon
which juvenile justice has been a particularly contentious
political issue, even culminating in marches
on Parliament complaining about the actions
of the Children's Court.
Happily now is not such a time.
But recent times have seen some increasing public disquiet
about levels of juvenile crime.
In part I think that's come about because
of the visual images that have been broadcast
of children committing offences of violence.
And that is not so much an indication of increasing levels
of that sort of activity, but more increasing opportunities
for recording it because, of course, CC TVs are ubiquitous
as are video and still cameras, which everybody carries
around in their pocket in the form of their mobile phone.
So, you get the visual images that become a media grab,
which is then broadcast and captured public attention.
But saying that I don't mean to suggest that there is no basis
for public concern in this area.
While the data suggests that in some areas that crime,
juvenile offendings is significantly reducing,
notably burglary and car death.
The data in relation to assaults is less clear.
And the anecdotal evidence that I've received
from a very reliable source, namely Judge Dennis Reynolds,
President of the Children's Court and Magistrates
of that court suggested they are very concerned
about the increasing levels of violence which they have seen
in some of the cases coming before that court.
Those increasing levels of violence inflicted
by some juveniles almost always
on other juveniles are legitimate areas
of great concern not only to the courts but also
to executive government and to the community.
The measures adopted by the government and the courts
to address those problems are matters
of the greatest public importance.
Now the aim of my address this morning is to review patents
of juvenile offending the measures that we
as a community might take in response to that offending
and what we might also take in the future.
Now the first point I'd like to make because of the address
that I'm about to give is a danger that might think
because I'm addressing a topic,
those offended, all our kids are bad.
The first point I really want to hammer is that most
of our kids are very good kids.
I rely heavily for that proposition upon a terrific
report produced by the Order to General's office.
And I'm very pleased to see the Order
to General here this morning, a couple years ago.
And the Order to General's office found
that in the five years to the 30th of June 2007 just
over 1000 young people had more
than 10 formal contacts with police.
That's over five years, not one year; five years.
That was out of a total population
of 225,000 young people between the ages of 10
and 17 in Western Australia.
So, it's only less than one percent of that population
and 80 percent of our young people had no formal contact
whatever with police.
And of those who did have formal contact, the vast majority,
about 80 percent, had only one
or two formal contacts over that period.
So, the vast majority of our kids are good
and I wouldn't want any other message to emerge.
Well as I'll be saying later, there is, of course,
unfortunately a grey side
of the representation averaging children
within the juvenile justice system again would be a mistake
to conclude from that, that aboriginal kids are bad.
The vast majority of our aboriginal kids are good.
Over that same five years only 800 out of the population
of 11,000 aboriginal young people had more
than 10 formal contacts with police.
So, the next statistic that I'd refer you to is in terms
if we got to the [inaudible] the worst aspect
of juvenile offendings, of course,
those kids are in detention.
In the year to 30 June 2008
on average there were 164 young people in custody each day.
That's the second highest rate of detention in Australia,
the highest rate being in the northern territory
because of its proportion of aboriginal population.
But again, you put that figure in the context
of there being 235,000 young people
within the eligible population in WA that year,
and over the course of the year less
than 1000 young people spent some time in custody.
So again, of those commit offences serious enough
to spend some time in custody are only a very small proportion
of the overall population.
There are some persistent young offenders and that is,
again I rely on the Order
to General's report over five years.
About 1000 young people had more than 10 formal contacts
with police, but again that's
out of a population of more than 200,000.
But of those only 120 young people had 25
or more contacts with police.
So, we have a small group of persistent reoffenders
who are generating a great deal of trouble and expense
in the juvenile justice system.
And, of course, causing significant problems
within the community.
The next point I'd like to make is that we should not forget
that children are also often victims of offences.
And in most jurisdictions about 20 percent
of alleged juvenile offenders contact with police stand
from alleged offences against the person.
But a much greater percentage of that are actually victims
of offences against the person.
It tends to be a stereotypical view out there
of young thugs bashing up elderly people.
And, of course, that does happen from time to time.
But if you take the data, generally it is much more often
that young people are, in fact,
the victims of assaults committed by adults.
And we shouldn't overlook the fact
that while young people do perpetrate offences,
they are also more likely to be the victims of offences
against the person committed by adults.
So, usually as we'll say later young people come in contact
with police as a result of property crime,
but more often they are victims
of results including *** assaults.
One exception in this area is the offence of robbery
where the data nationally suggests
that juveniles are overrepresented in the category
of those that commit that offence.
Of course, that offence is often associated with substance abuse.
So, that's one of the issues that needs
to be addressed there.
I'd like to now look at the profile
of young offenders in Western Australia.
Before doing so, when you're looking at data
in this area it's important to remember the different ways
in which young offenders can be dealt with, because you need
to look at the dataset you're looking
at in order to draw conclusions.
A person who-- a young person who is identified
as possibly having committed an offence can be dealt
with basically in Western Australia by a [inaudible]
by a [inaudible] or a juvenile justice team
or by the input before a court
and they can be put before a court in two ways,
either by arrest or summons.
So, you need to look carefully at the dataset
to draw conclusions, because obviously those
who are cautioned, those who are referred
to a juvenile justice team are likely
to have a different profile to those
who are brought before a court.
And within those who are brought before a court,
those who are arrested are likely
to have a different profile to those
who are dealt with by summons.
With those observations as precautions in mind
when you look at the profile with gender,
of those cautioned 64 percent were male.
Of those referred to a juvenile justice team 75 percent
of those arrested, 80 percent were males.
So, the more serious the behaviour the greater the
representation of males, predictably.
In terms of age breakdown, this data comes
from the Crime Research Centre in 2005.
So, it's a little bit out of date,
but it's probably still relatively representative.
Amongst the juvenile group, 25 percent of those arrested,
which is the [inaudible] is between 10 and 14.
Seventy five percent were between 15 and 17.
In terms of region for those who arrested were summonsed,
that is those brought before the court, 40 percent of those were
in southeastern, which is Kalgoorlie,
central which is Geraldton, Pilbara and Kimberly.
So, 40 percent of the arrests in Children's Court came
from that regional group.
And, of course, that is a significant overrepresentation
compared to the percentage of that population of the state.
And about 20 percent of the juveniles arrested in summons
in those regions were--
I'm sorry, over the whole state were aboriginal people
from those four regions.
Now if you move into offence type in relation
to those arrested, 41 percent
as I mentioned earlier were arrested in rising offences
against property, 33 percent in relation
to offences against the person.
As I mentioned earlier, I said there were
about 20 percent across the nation.
That's because it's of a different cohort.
That's 20 percent of contact with police.
This is arrests, so you'd expect to see a higher percentage
of offences against the person who makes the arrests.
Twenty six percent were arrested in relation to other offences.
I'd like now to move to the topic
of indigenous representation
and as I've already mentioned the data does establish
for juvenile justice.
It does for adults the gross overrepresentation
of indigenous offenders within the juvenile justice system.
The Order to General to the report I mentioned estimated
that about 75 percent of the persistent group
of young offenders to which I referred were original
and a significant number of those
in the region of western Australia.
Now looking at the data for 2005 again,
the percentage aboriginal juveniles compared
to non-aboriginal juveniles have informal contact with police,
again depended on the way in which they were dealt with.
So, that if you go to those
who are cautioned aboriginal children were 29 percent.
For those referred to juvenile justice teams 33 percent,
but 50 percent of those arrested.
Now you compare those percentages to the fact
that aboriginal children comprise about five percent
of the relevant population.
If you move then to offence type aboriginal juveniles were 50
percent of young people arrested in relation to assault,
58 percent *** assault, 59 percent for robbery,
66 percent for burglary, 61 percent motor vehicle theft,
39 percent receiving handling proceeds of crime,
19 percent fraud, 32 percent property damage and 45 percent
of people arrested in relation to disorderly conduct.
So, that gives you some indication of the sorts
of offences that bring our aboriginal kids before
the court.
In terms of outcomes, again there are differences
in the percentage of outcomes depending
on where the offender is aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
For males 82 percent
of aboriginal juveniles are found guilty after a plea
or a trial compared to 76 percent of non-aboriginals.
For females the relevant proportions were 79 percent
and 66 percent.
Twenty two percent of aboriginal juveniles were given a custodial
penalty as compared to nine percent
of non-aboriginal juveniles.
Non-aboriginals were more likely to receive the fine,
which is 35 percent than aboriginal juveniles.
Within the offence of assault 26 percent
of aboriginals were more likely
to receive a custodial penalty compared
to 78 percent of non-aboriginal.
For burglary the relative ratio is
at 31 percent compared to 18 percent.
When you're looking at the percentage of fines you do,
however, have to be reminded that it's more likely
that non-aboriginal juveniles will be brought before the court
for traffic offences where a fine is more likely disposition
so that tends to skew the overall percentages;
you need to bear that in mind.
It's very difficult to know what the reasons
for those differential dispositions are, so that even
within an offence type like assault you have a wide range
of offending behaviours that can be encompassed
within that offence.
And the only way you could know what the reasons
for these differential dispositions would be
if you did a qualitative analysis of individual cases
to look at the reasons why those dispositions were as they were.
But there is certainly a detectable difference
in disposition and outcome for aboriginal children
within our juvenile justice system.
Now, in terms of supervision during 2007 to 08
about 65 percent of the 2000 young people
under the criminal justice division
of western Australia were aboriginal.
Two thousand is out of a total juvenile population of 235,000.
The rate of supervision of aboriginal,
young aboriginal people
in Western Australia was almost double the national average.
Now in terms of custody,
this month aboriginal children represent about 65 percent
of those in custody on remand, which is 62 out of 80; 43 males
and nine females in about 68 percent
of the sentenced population, which is 56 out of 82;
55 males and one female.
The fact that there is only one female aboriginal sentenced
to detention in Western Australia
at the moment is actually a very positive sign.
And the other thing, those percentages, scary as they are,
65 percent and 68 percent are actually lower
than they have been in recent times.
It's probably a bit early yet to say that's a trend,
but it seems possible that the reduction in this proportion
of kids in custody are aboriginal might be
in consequence of good things that it been happening
in the [inaudible] and in Geraldton,
to which I'll reserve later.
The disproportionate representation
of kids is greater than it is for adults.
Comparable figures for adults are that adults comprise
about 40 percent of the overall prison population.
So for juveniles, it's about the mid-60s;
so the disproportion is greater for juveniles
than it is for adults.
That's not a very promising portend of the future.
And in terms of detention,
error rate of aboriginal juvenile detention is the
highest in the country by Australians,
double that of the Northern Territory.
Now, what I think is difficult
to assess is just why our aboriginal children are
so much overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.
I've relied upon paper produced
by Dennis Reynolds it was much better qualified than I am
to comment on that issue.
He has drawn attention to a number of factors
that I'll reserve to you.
The impact of the commonisation, the disempowerment,
the disconnection from land, the cultural dislocation
that we know about, greater proportion of broken families
within aboriginal communities, high proportion
of poor parenting skills, exposure to neglect and abuse,
physical, mental and sometimes ***.
Children, aboriginal children are more likely to be subjected
to or witnessed domestic violence.
Substance abuse and violence are more common, death and grief
within the family is more common.
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is an increasing aspect
of juvenile offending behaviour that were seeing communities.
Poor school attendance rates, poor school self-esteem,
a sense of hopelessness in some families and communities,
lack of self-respect, unstable or inadequate accommodations.
Mental health issues are more prevalent
in aboriginal communities.
Poor [inaudible] literacy and numeracy, and therefore,
poor employment prospects.
Now that's a pretty daunting list.
But if you wanted to summarise it, his view, which I share,
is that the causes of the gross overrepresentation
of aboriginal children
in the juvenile justice system are the multifaceted
and interactive aspects of disadvantage suffered
by the aboriginal community generally
about which we have known for so long.
Now if that view is correct, it follows that unless
and until we successfully address all of those areas
and aspects of multifaceted aboriginal disadvantage,
we are unlikely to make a significant impact upon the
overrepresentation of aboriginal children
in the juvenile justice system.
It also follows that given the disproportionate average
of children amongst a group of persistent offenders who consume
so many of the resources that we apply in this area,
that we're more likely to succeed I think
in protecting the community if we focus resources
on reducing the prospect of reoffending
by focusing upon the causes of the offending rather
than upon a merely punitive response.
I'd like now to talk about the version, because that is one
of the big features of juvenile justice in Western Australia
and in most other jurisdictions.
As I mentioned, the data establishes that the majority
of young people only have a couple of formal contacts
with police and simply grow out of their misbehaviour.
Happily a lot of 15 to 19-year-olds who do silly
and unlawful things simply grow up and mature
and get on with their lives.
In that context the young offenders and [inaudible]
under that recognise that one
of the things we must focus upon is doing--
not doing more harm than good when a juvenile comes
to attention because of offending behaviour.
We know that things like labelling, we note the things
like requiring juvenile offenders to mix in a cohort
of other offenders are all very negative things
and might impede the natural process of maturation that will,
if you let it run its course very often, take that person
out of a patent of offending behaviour.
So, under the act, we do have the processes
to which I've referred, caution and referral
to juvenile justice teams that are generally bracketed
under the heading of diversion.
Now the Order to General's report, which I've referred,
concluded that the divisionary processes provided
by the [inaudible] utilised in the last five years
and they were after the act was introduced.
And there are a couple of reasons for that.
One includes the fact that some traffic offences were not
scheduled offences, so there was no opportunity for diversion.
The other thing that seems fairly likely was the police
have lost confidence in divergent as an outcome,
probably because of the limited resources that were available
to actually provide supervision to kids within the community.
And so the Order to General recommended
that much greater emphasis be placed upon those diversionary
intenders created under the act.
It's very pleasing to me to note
that those recommendations have been enthusiastically embraced
by the Department of Corrective Services and by the police
with the full support of the executive government.
In the metropolitan area the premises
from which juvenile justice teams now operate have been made
completely separate from adult services.
And so they have been set up in hubs that are over time intended
to bring together various agencies
that can have an impact upon kids and families in trouble,
including Department of Child Protection,
Health and Education; and that I think, is a terrific initiative.
WA police have also reacted to very positively to the Order
to General's recommendations.
And the heads of court a couple
of months ago received a briefing from the Commissioner
of Police Senior Team about a very significant change
in structure and philosophy of juvenile justice within police
and an enormous emphasis is being placed upon the culture
of diversion within the police force.
And it's clear from the address that we received
from the Commissioner and his people that they are--
they are genuine and very enthusiastic
about improving rates of diversion.
And again I think these are very, very positive steps.
I'd like now to say little bit about detention.
The point, as I've said the pointy end of the process,
as I've mentioned we have the second highest rate
of juvenile detention per head in Australia.
Northern Territory has a higher rate
because it has a high proportion of aboriginal kids.
But if you go to aboriginal kids are rate
of detaining aboriginal kids is double that, more than double
that in the territory.
Now, because the numbers in detention are small,
it's very difficult to pick long-term trends.
But if you go over 30 years or so the trend--
the number of numerical trend is downwards so that there are
about 30 percent lower, less kids in custody
than there were in 1981.
Because of the volatility, I've mentioned
that there are significant peaks and troughs.
Five years ago in August 2005 there were only 91 kids
in custody, 37 on remand and 54 sentenced.
Whereas in May of this year number peaked at 220,
made up of 120 on remand and 100 sentenced.
But it would be a mistake to draw trend from not
because the numbers are very volatile.
But if there is any trend over the last five years or so,
it does seem to show an increase in numbers.
Now, in terms of forward estimates though, the Department
of Corrective Services in May
of this year revised its forward estimates upwards
so that its forward estimate of 199 kids in custody
in 2020 was revised upward with 256,
which is a significant increase.
And the revisions
for community-based supervision are not
to significant from 921 to 1087.
Now I don't know why those estimates have been made;
I'm not privy to the reasoning process.
But it does seem that the department has made an estimate
that increasing use will be made of detention
over the next 10 years or so.
Now on any given day, as you've seen
from the data I've already mentioned,
kids in custody will fall into two groups:
those who are remanded in custody and those
who have been sentenced to detention.
Recently across destroying others been a general trend
whereby the former group, that is there is remanded
on custody, has grown.
In the latter group, that is those sentenced to detention,
has diminished and not trend is also apparent
in Western Australia.
But happily, it's been offset in recent times
by a couple of things.
The first is the significantly improved resources in Geraldton
and Kalgoorlie in juvenile justice area
where facilities have been made available to put kids in trouble
so that a lot of there's kids are no longer removed to Perth
and put in custody because there's nowhere else
to put them.
And there's also been a significant improvement
in kids given supervised bail.
So, in August this month there were 65 young people
on supervised bail in Western Australia whereas
in 2002 there were less than 10.
So, it's fair to say that if we had made those improvements
in those sort of programs, the number of kids
in custody would be significantly higher.
I'd like now to talk about the effectiveness of detention.
And before doing that I should acknowledge
that sometimes the custodial sentence is the only reasonable
disposition for young offender.
That might be because of the seriousness of the case
or because the patent of offending you
such that the community and the offender both need
to be protected by taking the offender out of circulation.
Most often, where there are serious substance abuse problems
associated with violent or risky behaviours.
Obviously, while the offenders are
in custody they can't perpetrate offences
against other members of the community.
But you've got to remember that except in the case
of homicide offenders, all juvenile offenders have
to be released at some time or other.
It would be a mistake to think that placing offenders
in custody significantly reduces the risk of offending.
In 2004 Australian Institute of Criminology released a report
which addressed reoffending studies around the world
on juvenile offenders and noted
that in North America the recidivism rate
for young people living in custody had been reported
as being as high as 96 percent.
In Britain, 88 percent of British males between 14
and 16 reoffending within two years of release from custody.
Now going on now to WA, the Attorney General gave an answer
to a parliamentary question last year
and the data is interesting.
For males who exited-- male juveniles who exited custody
over 10 years ending 30 June, 2008,
seventy five percent had returned
to custody before early May, 2009.
For aboriginal juveniles that figure was almost 80 percent.
For female aboriginals the figure was a bit lower,
64 percent and unfortunately there wasn't any data provided
for female juveniles generally.
That's over a 10 year follow-up period.
You can take a shorter term, a shorter follow-up period figures
for the various quarters during 2009 showed that return
to custody within two years from release is
between 46 and 61 percent.
So, in very rough terms, you take a short-term view
about half of the kids released
from custody will be back there within two years.
And if you take a longer-term follow-up the percentage looks
more like three quarters of the kids returning to custody.
So in terms of changing patents of offending behaviour,
the custody per se doesn't seem to be terribly effective.
now there are ways that we would studies can--
studies have shown that there can be more
effective intervention.
There are U.S. studies that have shown that properly targeted
and effective programs can reduce recidivism defenders
in the community by up to 40 percent and for those
in custody by 30 to 35 percent.
I think it's an open question
as to whether those results could be achieved
in Western Australia because of the particular demographic
and ethnic factors which bear upon juvenile offending
in the state.
But they do suggest that there is reason for applying resources
to effective programmatic intervention.
The other thing, of course,
about the tension has been identified in a number
of reports including the Australian Institute
of Criminology report, which I referred is
that very often detention can have a negative effect upon
future prospects.
There been a number of studies that show
that incarceration has a significant negative effect
on future employment prospects for aboriginal
and for non-aboriginal offenders.
And not, of course, is consistent with the philosophy
in the Young Offenders Act, which makes it abundantly clear
that not only for adult offenders, but particularly
for young offenders, rehabilitation is
to be a key component of the sentencing process.
And the custodial sentence is to be an absolute last resort.
Every judge or magistrate knows when they are confronted
with the proposition of putting a young offender in custody
that that outcome will change that person's life forever
and probably not in a positive way
and so it is very much a last resort.
Now going up-- having referred to detention the point I want
to make is the group of offenders we're talking about
or a tiny, tiny proportion of our kids generally.
And so it shouldn't be thought that these propositions suggest
that our kids are somehow degenerate and deteriorating.
I'd like now to move on to the subject of cost, which is,
of course, very relevant to any public policy issue.
In WA, juvenile offenders cost much more
than adult offenders to incarcerate.
It cost between 600 to 700 a day to keep a juvenile in custody.
Community-based supervision is much less expensive obviously,
but it is still very expensive.
The Order to General's report estimated that 250 kids
that had the most intersection with the juvenile justice system
when they passed between the ages of 10
and 17 would cost the state of Western Australia
about a 100 million dollars over the course
of their lives, their juvenile lives.
Now, there's a few quick at math will immediately see that's 400
thousand dollars per child within the cohort.
And expending [inaudible] in these areas is increasing
between the years ending June 2008
and June 2011 budget allocations to the Department
of Corrective Services increased by 63 percent.
Obviously, that will be at the expense
of other agencies of government.
And I've suggested on other occasions
that government expenditure aimed at relieving--
alleviating the conditions which contribute to the causes
of crime may provide more effective protection
to the community then spending directed
at the consequences of crime.
Now, where do we go from here?
We-- apparent from the views I've already expressed,
it seems to me that the future
of juvenile justice should include renewed focus
on diversion.
I'm happy to report that that's happening.
Proper resourcing of community-based supervision
and where possible interagency cooperation,
which addresses the causes of juvenile offending
on an holistic basis in a family environment with the use
of detention only as a last resort.
Particular attention needs to be focused upon the small group
of persistent offenders who consume much
of the resources of the system.
Unfortunately, many of them are aboriginal
and a significant number of whom live in Western Australia.
Happily, my view of the future happens to coincide
with views expressed by executive government.
As many of you would know,
in this recent budget WA government announced an
allocation of almost 44 million dollars to be spent
over four years improving delivery
of juvenile Justice services in the Kimberly
and the Pilbara following along the good work that's already
been done in [inaudible] and the Geraldton area.
The Attorney General and announcing that initiative said,
and I'll quote, "It's an unfortunate reality that more
than 150 used from the Kimberly
and Pilbara regions have spent time in juvenile detention
in 2009 at an average cost to the taxpayer of between 600
and 700 dollars per day.
While juvenile detention is often necessary,
when young offenders can be helped away from offending,
it decreases the burden on the WA public both in terms of cost
to the taxpayer and community safety.
Where it is possible to prevent juveniles
from entering the formal justice system,
it can become an effective way
of improving a young person's life opportunities
and preventing criminal behaviour in the short
and long-term", as to which I would respectfully say
here here.
The minister's parliamentary secretary
and Mr. Michael Mission made a very similar observation
on the benefits of diversion recently
when he announced the opening
of the Southwest Metropolitan Regional Services Youth Services
Office in [inaudible] now, because of the patent
of offending Western Australia that I've already referred to,
the allocation of significant additional resources
to juvenile justice in the regions is very important.
Again, it's very encouraging to know that that is happening.
I've already mentioned the recent allocation to Kimberly
and Pilbara and not follows on from steps
that were taken a couple of years ago in Kalgoorlie
and in Geraldton and it's worked.
We know from those communities and we know from the data
that those things have significantly improved outcomes
for kids in those areas.
And I'm confident that we will see similar benefits generated
in the Kimberly and Pilbara.
The timetable is very encouraging in those places.
It's hopeful that the facilities were talking
about will be opened in the West Kimberly and Broome by January
of next year, for East Kimberly and [inaudible] by July
of next year and Pilbara by January of 2012.
And arrangements will be made for [Inaudible] to do service
from Geraldton and probably for [inaudible]
to be serviced in Kalgoorlie.
So, important things are happening
and improving the resources that are being made available
in our regions for kids in trouble.
I think these are enormously important initiatives
and I think they will, in fact, achieve a quiet revolution
in the way in which juvenile justice has been dealt
with in the state.
Together with the restructure of service delivery
and the Metropolitan region I think these are causes
for quiet optimism about the future and the way
in which we addressing the problem of juvenile offending.
But, we must come back to reality.
The hard reality that I've already mentioned is
that the extent of social disadvantage suffered
by many aboriginal families within the state is
such that unless and until there is multifaceted aspects
of disadvantage are addressed we can unfortunately expect the
children of aboriginal families will continue
to be overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.
There is a limit to what can be done
within the juvenile justice system unless
and until those causes are addressed and responsibility
for addressing those causes lies more predominantly
with other agencies of government
and within the juvenile justice system.
But, there does seem to be a gain and run
for cautious optimism because the groundswell of action
and expression and view from those other agencies,
both at the state and Commonwealth level,
leaves one to think they certainly get the point
and are certainly committed to addressing those issues.
The challenge, I think is now to see effective service delivery
in response to those expressions of goodwill
and policy enthusiasm.
My own view is that effective service delivery will never
occur unless and until aboriginal people are
significantly involved in the program delivery
and are encouraged to take ownership and responsibility
for the delivery of those programs.
So I'd like to round up, for those of you
who like take away messages, I'll give you four points
that emerge from this address this morning.
The first point is that the vast majority
of our kids are good kids, including the vast majority
of our aboriginal kids.
The second point is that there are unlikely
to be quick fixes in this area.
But the third point is that if we can nevertheless apply some
programs and some resources to kids
that will improve their future prospects, we're more likely
to be effective in that result
and will likely better protect the community
if we take a more therapeutic approach rather
than a punitive approach.
In the fourth point is that we do seem to be on the right track
and so I think there is room for cautious optimism.
And that's all I wanted to say this morning.
So, I thank you very much for your attention.
[ Applause ]
>> We do have some questions.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Thanks very much Chief Justice.
We do have a couple of microphones and were happy
to take some questions.
If we can have our first handle please.
I didn't do my Dorothy Dixer let's see
if there someone out there.
Here we go.
[ Inaudible comments ]
[ Moving around ]
>> [inaudible] I'm just wondering
if you can give us your view or perhaps your from Judge Reynolds
with regard to the intensive supervision programs
that were introduced us a few years ago and is this something
that we should be trying to dispense?
>> Yes, if they're properly resourced.
The problem with those programs in the past has been the lack
of resources available to make sure
that the supervision is intensive.
Again this is something that was prominently featured
in the Order to General's report as a result
of which resources have improved significantly.
And I think there's a much greater confidence in the use
of ISOs as a sentencing outcome by-- in the Children's Court.
Some years ago there was lack of confidence
because orders were being made
and there were just not the resources
to provide the supervision required.
But if there are those resources,
experience suggest that they do work.
And none of these systems are going to be 100 percent,
but they're more likely to be effective than other systems.
And certainly, if the tossup is between ISO were custody,
then the suggestion is ISO's do seem to be more effective
than custody in terms of protecting the community
by reducing reoffending.
[ Moving around ]
[ Inaudible audience comments ]
>> For young offenders?
>> Yes John, I do have some thoughts on it.
But, as you anticipated, as the batter is before the powerment,
I don't think they are thoughts
that I should express in a forum like this.
There are conventions about proper lines of demarcation
between the elective representatives, the people
and the judiciary and I'm happy to leave
that to the elective representatives of the people,
unless, of course, the parliament wanted me
to express a view to it.
But I don't think it's appropriate for me
to express it you know in a forum like this.
But nice try anyway.
I've raised the back and let it go through.
>> Chief Justice you surmised the amount
of resources going into--
[ Inaudible audience comments ]
>> Yeah.
[ Inaudible audience comments ]
>> What do you see is happening for this part of the country
with reference to [inaudible] with attention to the southwest?
>> Well, it's a good point very well made.
You're absolutely right.
The southwest does tend to get overlooked.
We're not overlooked but at least placed lower in the list.
The reason for that, I think, is because if you look at the rates
of offending the areas
that I have mentioned are the most problematic.
The Kimberly produces tragically the worst practice of offending
by the [inaudible] and juveniles than any area of the state.
The other areas that I've mentioned, more remote areas,
tend to produce higher rates of offending and higher issues,
higher problematic areas.
And that is why I think attention has been directed
first of those areas, but I would certainly hope and expect
that the Southwest will be picked up in this
as the program is gradually rolled out.
And we sort of, as I say,
we sort of started [Inaudible] and Geraldton.
It's now extended into Kimberly and Pilbara and we'll pick
up [inaudible] in the process.
Obviously, one would expect the Southwest to be next.
It's a question of finding the resources.
Most of those resources have come
through the [inaudible] program.
And I would hope and expect that Southwest would be next.
[ Moving around ]
>> Chief Justice--
[ Inaudible audience question ]
>> it's very hard to know the answer to that, Paul.
It's a terrible dilemma.
The recidivism rates that I've announced a very depressing,
particularly for aboriginal kids.
Eighty percent of males go back in custody over the longer term.
And American studies to which I've referred,
suggest that if you do really work hard
at your programs there can be effective interventions.
But if the problem in Western Australia is
in part the various areas of disadvantaged
in family environments, which are preferred.
If you're releasing there's kids
into the same disadvantaged family environment
that has produced their offending behaviour
in the first place, there might be a limit
to what you can expect to achieve while they are
out of their environment and in custody.
That's not to say you shouldn't do it,
but it might place a limit on the efficacy
of the things that you should do.
Obviously you should do things like improve efficacy skills,
you should get kids drivers licenses,
with the drivers license set aside that when they come
out they are employable.
Those are the sort of things, very obvious things,
that will reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
But the sad fact is, is that if there's kids go back
into precisely the same environment that's caused them
to offend in the first place,
if they mix with the same peer group
and the same tragic family circumstances,
then there's just no limit as to what you can do in custody.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it,
but it does I think please limit on the likelihood of success.
But perhaps it means that we ought to be more interventionist
about the environments to which those kids return.
And maybe we ought to take steps to release them
into a safer environment more conducive to rehabilitation.
That raises a whole lot of other spectres, and particularly
if were talking about aboriginal kids that need
to be really thought through.
>> There's a question.
[ Moving around ]
[ Inaudible audience question ]
>> I'm sorry, I think
as I suggested perhaps rather more obliquely
that I should have, all the agencies that are involved in--
like the living conditions of our kids to be working together
in a cooperative basis.
And Judge Reynolds has made a number of initiatives
in this regard that I think are helping.
But if you've got kids that aren't attending school
and of course school attendance rates
for aboriginal kids are very low throughout the state.
You've got kids who are illiterate.
You've got kids who are living in unsatisfactory housing
because there are 25 or 28 people in a house.
If you've got poorer levels of health, including mental health,
then all of these things are going to work together
and produce a very high likelihood
of that kid being involved in the juvenile justice system.
So you really need to address all of those issues
and you also need to [inaudible] Judge Reynolds has hammered this
point again and again and it's been accepted by the agencies.
You need to address them in the family environment
so that the kid, the offending kid, is usually a symptom
of a dysfunctional family.
If the kids going to remain in the family,
you've got to address the family dysfunction before you're going
to change the behaviour of the kid.
So you need to get all the agencies working together.
That is I think the concept
that underpins the original juvenile justice hubs
where they're trying to get all the agencies
into the same facility and hopefully that'll happen.
And hopefully there will be a much more holistic
to approaching the kid in the family environment.
[ Moving around ]
[ Inaudible audience question ]
This is a topic that I guess is very dear to my heart.
[inaudible comments] the importance
of addressing the issues within the family
and it's not just the aboriginal.
[inaudible] So you know coming
from what we now call a [inaudible] background
[inaudible] and I think that you know I guess
from [inaudible] children learn [inaudible]
when they're around their parents.
So, I guess children learn from the parents.
And when we talk about dysfunctional families,
essentially what we're talking about are parents
and extended families who in themselves are also unhappy
and that is moving on to the children.
I'm going to pick out something
that [inaudible] I get a bit nervous.
[ Inaudible audience question ]
Tells us that the key component in determining how an individual
in the early years and becoming an adult is the relationship
between the primary carer.
[inaudible] tells us that those mental [inaudible] help us
understand the life around us, how we understand
that is so very important.
The whole issue of managing [inaudible] goes right back
to ancient--
[ Inaudible audience question ]
I think the-- probably the damage that could be done
in shaming someone publicly, especially at a very young age
and something like 16, is
that there is already a strong honour culture
and I guess we all know indigenous, ethnic,
whatever [inaudible] have some form of honour that the impact
on the individual who'd be
such that it is [inaudible] whatever the government decides,
the government decides on what it does.
But I guess I just wanted to raise those issues.
I found your talk very, very good this morning.
I think you raise important issues that we need
to continue to look at.
I would actually like to see a lot more work
between inter agencies like the [inaudible]
because I think the interventions that we need
in families and more of that information needs to come
from a whole range of areas and perspectives.
And I think universities like Curtin
and like WA [inaudible] government departments
and private sectors, well we all need
to work together [inaudible]
into that future of our community.
And I'm really concerned, [inaudible comments]
because somewhere along the line we do have
to work together as one.
>> Well, thanks for that.
I won't say anything about [inaudible] but I will say
that the general philosophy
of not labelling juveniles is embodied very specifically
in the current legislative provisions,
which prohibit publication of names of juvenile offenders.
And that's consistent with at least two international
covenants to which Australia is a party.
So, I think there is general recognition
of the importance of that philosophy.
[ Inaudible comments ]
[ Moving around ]
>> Thanks very much.
Chief Justice one of the things
that I found most disturbing was [inaudible] and you talked
about the success of some programs developing [inaudible]
Could you comment on what other things are being done
to ensure [inaudible] as a result of--
[ Inaudible audience comments ]
>> There are a number of factors contributing
to the higher remote population.
Until the facilities are developed
and are being developed.
It is often a consequence of there being no safe place
for the child to be kept and so custody is the only alternative
because child protection cannot provide places for those kids.
That is being addressed in some of the regions of the state,
but it is still a significant issue finding a safe place
and a responsible person to look
after the child is a real problem not only
in western Australia but around Australia.
But as I mentioned there are some promising signs there.
The supervised bail program is working.
As I've suggested there are 55 kids not in custody today
who were probably in custody six or seven years ago
as a consequence for that program.
And the other problem, of course,
that Yvonne has made we aware is that many of the kids
who are remanded in custody don't ultimately receive
sentenced detention.
So they are kept in custody [inaudible]
within certain non-custodial disposition.
That might of course be because they already had the short
[inaudible] shock of being in custody.
But it is a bit of a worry that kids are put
in custody [inaudible] that result
in detention as an outcome.
But the other factors that work around Australia and perhaps
in Western Australia as well and that is as a result
of conditions that are imposed on bail.
Often bail is granted subject to conditions.
If those conditions are rigorously supervised
and enforced by police and kick the board back for breach,
bail is more likely to be revoked and kids are going
to find themselves in custody.
There does seem to be a bit of that not only
in western Australia but also around Australia in the sense
that it's getting more rigorous about imposing conditions.
Now you've got to wonder sometimes you know you get a
curfew condition, it's imposed for good reason.
You get the kid out [inaudible] whether the response
to it being him being in the wrong place
at the wrong time is custody is a problematic issue.
I suppose it depends on the nature
of what he was doing there
or what she was doing there and so on.
But there are difficult issues and it is, I know from talking
to Dennis Reynolds, he is very worried
about the percentage of remands.
Because all around Australia the remand population is growing,
inaudible is diminishing and that is a real worry
and it is something that we would need to address.
[ Inaudible audience comments ]
>> I think that by case management you mean [inaudible]
Department of Corrective Services
in conjunction with other agencies.
I think that philosophy is accepted.
The tricky bit is implementing it on the ground
with resource limitations and so forth.
But I see the regional hubs have now been developed
by the department as the key focus for that activity
and providing holistic thorough case management
so that all the agencies involved in a family
and the life of a child and are working together
to address the problems that might be manifesting themselves
in offending behaviours.
So, I think that philosophy is accepted.
The challenge is implementing it.
[ Moving around ]
[ Inaudible background comments ]
>> Okay.
[ Inaudible audience question ]
>> Well, Clem that's the second time I agree entirely
with everything you say.
It was sort of a throw away line at the end of my paper
because I'd talked about so much else,
but I have given other addresses where I've focused on the need,
for government agencies to empower aboriginal people
to take responsibility for those issues because it just seems
to me that if you look at things are work--
if you look at the alcohol restrictions in Kimberly,
for example, that have worked, they have worked
because they were the initiatives of strong
and powerful aboriginal people within those communities.
In that circumstance government has come along
and provided support to those initiatives.
That's what we need to do.
We need to encourage responsible aborigines
because we can identify them, we can see them.
We encourage them to take ownership, leadership,
empower them to assume responsibility
for these problems I think we're much more likely
to get successful outcomes.
So, here here.
>> [inaudible] my question is well [inaudible] since we're all
in this together and all of the issues involved
in juvenile justice are linked to media representations
and the general public, there has been criticism in the past
or there has been issues in the past
about the media putting pressure if you like on the judiciary
and sometimes this goes in waves.
From your point of view is there a general trend?
Are things getting worse, better or is it just one of those up
and down sort of things in terms
of how the media is portraying the whole issue
on juvenile justice?
>> There have been terrible times in the history
of this state where the media have attacked
in quite vicious ways the President
of the Children's Court resulting
in marches on Parliament.
I don't think it's conducive--
I encourage media criticism of the judiciary.
It's an important part of our democracy.
But that sort of hysterical reaction doesn't encourage
informed debate.
Happily we haven't seen any of that for about five or six years
and there seems to be much more measured and tempered approach
that is being taken towards reporting
of things involving children.
And again, I think that might be a sign that the community
and the media representing the community appreciated
that we are heading in the right direction.
This seems to be that because of the lack
of media reaction we can perhaps infer that people seem
to think we're getting the balance pretty right.
In terms of those kids who are put in custody so they are now
in protection and those kids
who are given community based supervision
that you do get instances.
There have been some just last week which attract
and meet your attention when things go wrong and that,
of course, attracts attention but happily.
But we haven't seen the kind of hysteria that has prevailed
in some previous years.
>> I'd like to ask that Professor Duncan Bentley,
the Provost Chancellor Business School to come
and say a few words of thanks to the Chief Justice.
Duncan.
>> Chief Justice thank you very much indeed
for a very challenging talk this morning.
I think that it's always very confronting
to see the statistics in cold hard ink before us.
We know in our hearts what's happening in our community,
but the media does tend to focus externally and not so much
on the issues which are facing us
as a community here in Western Australia.
And it was a very clear discussion of the causes,
but I think as you said a cause for optimism is the focus
by the judiciary and many of the agencies
who are represented here on acting together to focus
on addressing the causes of the issues which are facing us,
particularly in the rural and regional areas,
in the aboriginal communities where as--
it was very clearly pointed out.
There is a need for empowerment of those communities
and engagement in the finding of the solutions.
Now I suppose that's something
that Curtin University is very much focused
on through our research through the cooperative research centres
that we've got where researchers are looking into a range
of issues which will help bring about the solutions
and find how those solutions can be applied in a way
which is sustainable over the long term.
Because there's no point in coming up with quick fixes.
These are the sorts of things which need long-term solutions
and need cooperation right across the agencies, government,
the communities and the researchers
who can find the best ways to achieve those solutions based
on international work as well as local work.
And Chief Justice, I think that raising these sorts of issues
in forums such as this where the debate as you've seen
from the questions is at a very high level is one
of the best ways forward.
So, thank you very much indeed for an informative
and challenging talk and we'll go out and try and do our best
to contribute the solution.
So, thank you very much indeed.
[ Applause ]