Australian Politics and Policy - Senior, 2019a

Australian Politics and Policy
Moreover, legislative amendments to parole and sentencing laws – for example,
mandatory non-parole periods and mandatory sentencing – have curtailed the
discretion of parole boards and courts, contributing to longer periods of
imprisonment. Most Australian jurisdictions have passed ‘no body, no parole’ laws
that do not permit parole to be granted to offenders convicted of murder or
manslaughter if they have not revealed the location of the victim’s body. The
controversial ‘truth in sentencing’ laws introduced in NSW in 1989 require
sentenced offenders to serve a minimum of three-quarters of their sentence before
they are eligible for parole. Since the enactment of this legislation, prison numbers
and average sentence lengths have risen dramatically.
It is also important to note that the imprisonment rate for the Indigenous
population is 15 times higher than for the non-Indigenous population. In the
June 2018 quarter, 28 per cent or 11,963 of Australia’s inmates were Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. 20 By comparison, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people constitute just 3.3 per cent of Australia’s overall population. 21 This
has been further exacerbated by many of the previously mentioned crime trends,
and it continues to be a stain on Australian criminal justice systems and policies.
Unsurprisingly, the combination of all the above conditions has led to
significant prison overcrowding; in 2016–17, on average, secure prisons in Australia
held 21 per cent more prisoners than their maximum design capacity. 22 Prison
overcrowding compromises inmates’ ability to access adequate programs, services
and facilities as well as their right to privacy – all of which may impede their
rehabilitation progress and increase their risk of reoffending. Furthermore,
overcrowding increases the likelihood that disagreements will escalate into violent
situations, presenting a danger for both staff and inmates.
Moving away from penal welfarism
Law and order policy has not always been excessively punitive. The majority of
the 20th century was characterised by welfare-focused public policy. From a crime
reduction perspective, it was believed that the provision of social welfare services
would not only reduce poverty but also reduce the crimes that stemmed from social
and economic disadvantage. The objectives of welfare-style policies were twofold:
first, welfare support would address the underlying structural causes of crime (such
as poverty, social inequality, community disharmony), and second, the state had
a duty to rehabilitate offenders through the provision of welfare support, care and
assistance. The term ‘penal welfarism’ has been used to describe the integration of
20 ABS 2018b.
21 ABS 2018c.
22 Productivity Commission 2018.
654