Report on Government Services 2017 - Volume C: Justice

Produced by the Productivity Commission for the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision

Commonwealth of Australia 2017

ISSN 1329 181X (print) ISSN 2205-5703 (online) ISBN 978-1-74037-609-9 (Volume C) ISBN 978-1-74037-614-3 (set)

Except for the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and content supplied by third parties, this copyright work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (but not in any way that suggests the Steering Committee endorses you or your use) and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au.

Third party copyright

Wherever a third party holds copyright in this material, the copyright remains with that party. Their permission may be required to use the material, please contact them directly.

Attribution

This work should be attributed as follows, Source: Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2017.

If you have adapted, modified or transformed this work in anyway, please use the following, Source: based on Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision data, Report on Government Services 2017.

An appropriate reference for this publication is:

SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2017, Report on Government Services 2017, Productivity Commission, Canberra.

SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2017, Report on Government Services 2017, vol. C, Justice, Productivity Commission, Canberra.

Publications enquiries

The Productivity Commission acts as the Secretariat for the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. This report and previous editions are available from the Productivity Commission website at www.pc.gov.au.

The Steering Committee welcomes enquiries and suggestions on the information contained in this report. Contact the Secretariat by phone: (03) 9653 2100 or email: gsp@pc.gov.au

FOREWORD iii

Foreword

This is the twenty-second edition of the Report on Government Services —comparing the performance of governments in the efficient and effective delivery of a wide range of services aimed at improving the wellbeing of all Australians.

The Report was commissioned in 1993 by Heads of Government (now COAG). A new terms of reference issued in 2010 emphasised the dual roles of the Report in improving service delivery, efficiency and performance, and increasing accountability to governments and the public.

Improving the services in this Report is important to us all — everyone will rely on some of these services at some time in their lives (for example, school education), with some services for people with specific needs (for example, disability services) and some services an important part of the social welfare system (for example, social housing).

This edition is the first step in a major transformation to improve the Report’s accessibility and timeliness.

Accessibility has been improved with the Report streamlined to focus on information critical to understanding service performance, and the introductory chapters now available as a series of web pages with direct links to key material, rather than having to download a number of files.

The Report’s usefulness also relies on timely data. While we have current year data for most service areas some gaps remain, particularly for health data. For service-level data to be more useful for policy makers and the community, we need to reduce the time from data collection to clearance by agencies for reporting.

I would like to thank the Steering Committee for its oversight of this Report, the working group members who provide advice and input, and the Review Secretariat within the Productivity Commission which supports the Steering Committee and working groups, and produces the Report.

Peter Harris AO Chairman

January 2017

CONTENTS v

Contents

Foreword iii

Steering Committee vii

Terms of Reference ix

VOLUME C JUSTICE

C Justice sector overview C.1

C.1 Introduction C.1

C.2 Sector performance indicator framework C.8

C.3 Cross-cutting and interface issues C.18

C.4 References C.19

6 Police services 6.1

6.1 Profile of police services 6.1

6.2 Framework of performance indicators 6.5

6.3 Key performance indicator results 6.7

6.4 Definitions of key terms 6.33

6.5 References 6.37

7 Courts 7.1

7.1 Profile of court services 7.2

7.2 Framework of performance indicators 7.16

7.3 Key performance indicator results 7.17

7.4 Definitions of key terms 7.42

7.5 References 7.45

8 Corrective services 8.1

8.1 Profile of corrective services 8.2

8.2 Framework of performance indicators 8.6

8.3 Key performance indicator results 8.8

vi REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

8.4 Definitions of key terms 8.24

8.5 References 8.29

STEERING COMMITTEE vii

Steering Committee

This report was produced under the direction of the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP). The Steering Committee comprises the following current members:

Mr Peter Harris

Chairman

Productivity Commission

Mr Nicholas Hunt Mr Marty Robinson Ms Josephine Laduzko

Aust. Govt. Aust. Govt. Aust. Govt.

Department of Finance The Treasury Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Mr Rick Sondalini Ms Anita Truninger

NSW NSW

NSW Treasury Department of Premier and Cabinet

Ms Brigid Monagle Mr Jeremy Nott

Vic Vic

Department of Premier and Cabinet Department of Treasury and Finance

Ms Nicole Tabb Ms Janelle Thurlby

Qld Qld

Department of the Premier and Cabinet Queensland Treasury

Ms Melissa Rudez Mr Kurt Sibma

WA WA

Department of the Premier and Cabinet Department of Treasury

Ms Tammie Pribanic Mr Chris McGowan

SA SA

Department of Treasury and Finance Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Ms Ruth McArdle

Tas

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Mr Geoffrey Rutledge

ACT

Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate

Ms Jean Doherty Ms Linda Weatherhead Ms Nardia Harris

NT NT NT

Department of the Chief Minister Department of the Chief Minister Department of Treasury and Finance

Dr Paul Jelfs

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Mr Barry Sandison

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

viii REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

People who also served on the Steering Committee during the production of this Report include:

Ms Emily Martin Mr Jonathan Rollings

Aust. Govt. Aust. Govt.

The Treasury The Treasury

Ms Michelle Dumazel

NSW

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Ms Nicole Hunter

SA

Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Ms Rebekah Burton

Tas

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Mr Andrew Kettle

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

TERMS OF REFERENCE ix

Terms of Reference

The Report on Government Services

1. The Steering Committee will measure and publish annually data on the equity, efficiency and cost effectiveness of government services through the Report on Government Services (ROGS).

2. The ROGS facilitates improved service delivery, efficiency and performance, and accountability to governments and the public by providing a repository of meaningful, balanced, credible, comparative information on the provision of government services, capturing qualitative as well as quantitative change. The Steering Committee will seek to ensure that the performance indicators are administratively simple and cost effective.

3. The ROGS should include a robust set of performance indicators, consistent with the principles set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations; and an emphasis on longitudinal reporting, subject to a program of continual improvement in reporting.

4. To encourage improvements in service delivery and effectiveness, ROGS should also highlight improvements and innovation.

5. The Steering Committee exercises overall authority within the ROGS reporting process, including determining the coverage of its reporting and the specific performance indicators that will be published, taking into account the scope of National Agreement reporting and avoiding unnecessary data provision burdens for jurisdictions.

6. The Steering Committee will implement a program of review and continuous improvement that will allow for changes to the scope of the ROGS over time, including reporting on new service areas and significant service delivery areas that are jurisdiction-specific.

7. The Steering Committee will review the ROGS every three years and advise COAG on jurisdictions’ compliance with data provision requirements and of potential improvements in data collection. It may also report on other matters, for example, ROGS’s scope, relevance and usefulness; and other matters consistent with the Steering Committee’s terms of reference and charter of operations.

Outputs and objectives

Steering Committee authority

Reporting to COAG

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.1

C Justice sector overview

CONTENTS

C.1 Introduction C.1

C.2 Sector performance indicator framework C.8

C.3 Cross-cutting and interface issues C.18

C.4 References C.19

Attachment tables Attachment tables are identified in references throughout this sector overview by a ‘CA’ prefix (for example, table CA.1) and are available from the website www.pc.gov.au/rogs/2017.

C.1 Introduction

This sector overview provides an introduction to justice services, comprising police services (chapter 6), civil and criminal courts’ administration (chapter 7) and adult corrective services (chapter 8). It provides an overview of the justice sector, presenting both contextual information and high-level performance information.

Profile of the Justice sector

Sector outline

The Justice sector services covered in this Report comprise:

Police reporting on the operations of police agencies of each State and Territory government.

Courts reporting on service delivery in the State and Territory supreme, district/county and magistrates’ courts (including children’s courts, coroner’s courts and probate registries). The Federal Court of Australia, Family Court of Australia, Family Court of WA and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia are included.

C.2 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Corrective services reporting on adult custodial facilities and community corrections, including prison services provided through contractual arrangements with private providers.

The justice sector services comprise both criminal and civil jurisdictions. Services in the criminal jurisdiction are delivered by police, courts and corrective services. In the civil jurisdiction, police deliver services for infringements, and courts deal with civil law matters.

Other government services that contribute to criminal and civil justice outcomes but are not covered in this Report are:

legal aid services

public prosecutions

alternative dispute resolution services, such as conciliation and mediation

offices of fair trading or consumer affairs, which operate to minimise incidences of unlawful trade practices

victim support services, which assist victims’ recovery from crime (except processing of applications for compensation which is included in the civil courts information)

various social services and community organisations that help people released from prison to re-integrate into society, support families of people who are in prison, and assist people who have contact with the criminal justice system

Australian Crime Commission and federal functions of the Australian Federal Police

the operations of tribunals and registries (except for probate and court registries) and judicial outcomes

operations of the High Court of Australia and specialist jurisdiction courts (except for family courts, children’s courts and coroners’ courts)

law enforcement functions delivered by national agencies such as the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) or Department of Immigration (in relation to illegal immigrants).

Justice services for children and young offenders are covered under youth justice in chapter 17 of the Report.

Roles and responsibilities

Criminal justice system

Figure C.1 shows the typical flow of events in the criminal justice system. The roles of police, courts and corrective services, and the sequencing of their involvement, are shown.

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.3

Figure C.1 Flows through the criminal justice systema, b

a Does not account for all variations across Australian, State and Territory governments’ criminal justice systems. b The flow diagram is indicative and does not include all complexities of the criminal justice system.

Civil justice system

Figure C.2 is an indicative model of the flows through the civil justice system. While the emphasis is on the flow of disputes which proceed to court, the role of alternative dispute resolution processes is considerable in civil justice.

Criminal incidentDealt with as other than a crimeOffence comes to attention of authoritiesRecorded crimeNo offender identifiedOffence does not come to attention of authoritiesOffender identifiedInvestigationProceed by other (caution; diversion)Do not proceed (diplomatic immunity; under-age)Lower courts (local courts; courts of petty sessions; magistrates’ courts; children’s court)Entry into systemInvestigation and chargingAdjudication and sentencingSummary proceedingsCommittal proceedingsDirect presentment from DPP (Ex officio indictment)Higher courts (district courts; county courts; supreme courts)Not proven guilty (acquitted; withdrawn etc.)Proven guilty (found or pleaded guilty)Pre-sentence report/assessmentSentencingAppeal proceedings in relevant higher courtCourt-made adult community corrections ordersJuvenile optionsAdult Custodial sentencePrisoner case managementPre-release assessmentCommunity-based offender case managementRe-offenceNo re-offenceBreachProven guilty (found or pleaded guilty)Not proven guilty (acquitted; withdrawn etc.)Managing offendersProceed by chargingNot committedCommitted to Higher CourtAppealrejectedAppeal of sentence upheldAppeal of conviction upheldBreach

C.4 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure C.2 Flows through the civil justice systema, b

a Does not account for all variations across Australian, State and Territory governments’ civil justice systems. b The flow diagram is indicative and does not include all complexities of the civil justice system.

Real recurrent expenditure on justice services in this Report

Total real recurrent expenditure (less revenue from own sources) for those parts of the justice system covered in this Report was about $16.2 billion in 2015-16 (table C.1).

Civil disputeDisputants attempt alternative dispute resolution (eg mediation)Dispute not resolvedDispute resolvedEnd of disputeCourt proceedings commencedEntry into court systemPlaintiff does not proceed furtherDefence not filedDefence filedPlaintiff applies for default judgmentPre-trial activityDefault judgment given TrialDefault judgment not contestedDefault judgment contestedDefault judgment upheldLitigation process and outcome Settlement (can be through alternative dispute resolution)Court gives decisionNo appealAppeal proceedings initiatedPreparation of appeal caseHearing of appealSettlement (can be through alternative dispute resolution)Appellate court gives decisionNo further appealEnforcement of the court decision or the terms of settlement, if required.EnforcementEnd of case

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.5

Table C.1 Real recurrent expenditure (less revenue from own sources) on justice services by Australian, State and Territory governments (2015-16 dollars)a, b, c, d

Unit

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Average annual growth rate (%)

Police services

$m

10 073

9 987

10 536

10 793

10 982

2.2

Courts criminal

$m

827

807

793

821

825

-0.1

Courts civil

$m

690

645

630

636

611

-3.0

Corrective services

$m

3 200

3 207

3 370

3 635

3 738

4.0

Total justice system

$m

14 791

14 647

15 330

15 885

16 156

2.2

%

%

%

%

%

Police services

%

68.1

68.2

68.7

67.9

68.0

..

Courts criminal

%

5.6

5.5

5.2

5.2

5.1

..

Courts civil

%

4.7

4.4

4.1

4.0

3.8

..

Corrective services

%

21.6

21.9

22.0

22.9

23.1

..

Total justice system

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

..

a Totals may not sum as a result of rounding. b Expenditure data include depreciation, but exclude payroll tax and user cost of capital. This treatment has been adopted to aid comparability in the above table and may differ from the treatment used in tables within individual chapters. c Excludes real net recurrent expenditure on probate matters. d See tables 6A.10, 7A.14-15 and 8A.2 for detailed footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory governments (unpublished); tables 6A.10, 7A.14-15 and 8A.2.

Efficiency — real recurrent expenditure (less revenue from own sources) per person

Unit cost indicators for individual justice services in the Report are presented in the related chapters, but some outcomes result from interactions among the individual services. One indicator of sector efficiency is annual government recurrent expenditure per person on justice services (table C.2).

Nationally in 2015-16, real expenditure (less revenue from own sources) per person on the areas of justice reported on was $719 (table C.2).

C.6 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table C.2 Real recurrent expenditure (less revenue from own sources) per person on justice services, 2015-16a, b

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Police services

$

451

433

445

521

431

415

427

1257

459

Courts criminal

$

27

35

32

46

42

32

48

115

34

Courts civil

$

12

20

10

30

13

13

27

45

26

Corrective services

$

164

184

187

320

196

181

209

861

201

Total justice system

$

655

672

674

918

682

642

711

2278

719

Police services

%

68.9

64.4

66.0

56.8

63.2

64.7

60.0

55.2

63.8

Courts criminal

%

4.2

5.2

4.7

5.0

6.2

5.0

6.7

5.0

4.8

Courts civil

%

1.9

3.0

1.5

3.3

1.9

2.1

3.9

2.0

3.5

Corrective services

%

25.1

27.4

27.7

34.8

28.7

28.2

29.4

37.8

27.9

Total justice system

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

a Totals may not sum as a result of rounding. b See tables 6A.10, 7A.14-15 and 8A.2 for detailed footnotes and caveats.

Source: Australian, State and Territory governments (unpublished); tables 6A.10, 7A.14-15 and 8A.2.

Social and economic factors affecting demand for services

Criminal jurisdiction

Links have been drawn between criminal activity and social and economic factors such as poverty, levels of substance abuse, unemployment, and levels of social and community cohesion (Weatherburn 2001). Mental illness and early experiences of abuse may also have an interactive influence (Forsythe and Adams 2009) although the nature of these relationships with criminal activity can be complex. Levels of demand on justice services can be further driven by changes in legislative and policy environments introduced in response to social concerns such as levels of crime and fear of crime.

It was estimated that in 2011 the cost of crime in Australia was approximately $23.1 billion (Smith et al 2014). When combined with the costs of criminal justice, victim assistance, security, insurance and household precautions the total estimated cost of crime to the community rose to $47.6 billion. Expenditure by governments on criminal justice in 2011 was estimated at $16.3 billion, accounting for about one-third of the estimated overall costs. This is an increase from 2005, where expenditure on criminal justice accounted for about one-quarter of total costs (Rollings 2008).

While some estimates for criminal costs relating to fraud and drugs were included in the report by Smith et al (2014), the emphasis was more on crimes against the person and likely underestimated costs associated with organised crime. There is a financial cost to governments in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing organised crime, and it can harm the Australian economy by pushing out legitimate business or eroding public confidence in the banking, finance or investment sectors (ACC 2015). The Australian

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.7

Crime Commission has conservatively estimated that the costs to Australia of serious and organised crime amount to around $15 billion annually (ACC 2013).

Civil jurisdiction

Demand for civil justice services is influenced by the types of legal issues people experience, which in turn are influenced by social and economic factors. Demand also varies with the way in which people respond to legal issues — do nothing, deal with the issue independently or seek advice or legal assistance (Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department 2009). A survey of legal needs undertaken across Australia in 2008 by the Law and Justice Foundation of NSW found that disability, age, Indigenous status, disadvantaged housing and unemployment were associated with higher levels of legal problems. These characteristics were differentially associated with both the types of legal problems experienced and the strategies which people used in response to those problems (Coumarelos, Macourt, People, McDonald, Wei, Iriana and Ramsey 2012). Legal needs can also change over time, as a result of changes in the legislative, economic and social environments (Productivity Commission 2014).

Service-sector objectives

The objectives of the criminal and civil justice system are provided in box C.1. Specific objectives for each of the three justice services can be found in chapters 6 (police services), 7 (courts) and 8 (corrective services).

Box C.1 Objectives of the criminal and civil justice system The objectives of the criminal justice system are to: prevent, detect and investigate crime administer criminal justice that determines guilt and applies appropriate, consistent and fair sanctions to offenders provide a safe, secure and humane custodial system and an effective community corrections system. The objectives of the civil justice system are to: resolve civil disputes and enforce a system of legal rights and obligations respect, restore and protect private and personal rights resolve and address the issues resulting from family conflicts and ensure that children’s and spousal rights are respected and enforced.

C.8 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

C.2 Sector performance indicator framework

This sector overview is based on a sector performance indicator framework (figure C.3), made up of the following elements:

Sector objectives — two sector objectives, safe communities and a fair, equitable and accessible system of justice, are based on the key objectives of the Justice sector

Sector-wide indicators — three sector-wide indicators relate to the first sector objective and two indicators relate to the second sector objective.

Figure C.3 Criminal and civil justice sector performance indicator framework

Community perceptions of safety

‘Community perceptions of safety’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to maintain safe communities (box C.2).

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.9

Box C.2 Community perceptions of safety Community perceptions of safety’ is defined by two separate measures: the proportion of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ at home alone at night the proportion of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ in public places at night. High or increasing proportions of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ is desirable. Perceptions of safety may not reflect reported crime, as reported crime might understate actual crime, and many factors (including media reporting and hearsay) might affect public perceptions of crime levels and safety. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions. Source: Chapter 6.

Data for this indicator are derived from the National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (NSCSP) – see chapter 6 for further details on this survey.

Nationally in 2015-16, 88.5 per cent of people felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ at home alone during the night (figure C.4). The proportions were lower for those walking alone locally during the night (51.7 per cent nationally) and lower again for those on public transport during the night (24.3 per cent nationally) (figure C.4).

Figure C.4 Proportion of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ in public places during the night, 2015-16a

a See tables CA.1-2 and 6A.19-21 for detailed footnotes and caveats.

Source: Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) (unpublished) NSCSP; tables CA.1-2 and 6A.19-21.

C.10 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Crime victimisation

‘Crime victimisation’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to maintain safe communities (box C.3).

Box C.3 Crimes against the person and against property ‘Crime victimisation’ is defined by six measures: estimated victimisation rate for physical assault per 100 000 people aged 15 years or over estimated victimisation rate for threatened assault per 100 000 people aged 15 years or over estimated victimisation rate for sexual assault per 100 000 people aged 18 years or over estimated household victims of break-in per 100 000 households estimated household victims of attempted break-in per 100 000 households estimated victims of motor vehicle theft per 100 000 households Low or decreasing proportions of crime victimisation is desirable. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2014-15 data are available for all jurisdictions. Source: Chapter 6.

Based on ABS crime victimisation survey data, nationally in 2014-15, it was estimated there were:

2137 victims of physical assault per 100 000 people (figure C.5)

2626 victims of face-to-face threatened assault per 100 000 people (figure C.5)

329 victims of sexual assault per 100 000 people (figure C.5)

2715 victims of break-in per 100 000 households (figure C.6)

2022 victims of attempted break-in per 100 000 households (figure C.6)

598 victims of motor vehicle theft per 100 000 households (figure C.6).

Nationally, rates of physical and face-to-face threatened assault (table 6A.27) have been decreasing since 2011-12.

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.11

Figure C.5 Estimated victims of assault and sexual assault, 2014-15a

a See tables CA.3 and 6A.27 for detailed footnotes and caveats.

Source: ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0; tables CA.3 and 6A.27.

Figure C.6 Estimated victims of break-in, attempted break-in and motor vehicle theft, 2014-15a

a See tables CA.4 and 6A.28 for detailed footnotes and caveats.

Source: ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0; tables CA.4 and 6A.28.

C.12 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Re-offending rates

The extent to which people who have had contact with the criminal justice system are re-arrested, re-convicted or receive further sentences can be viewed as a partial indicator of governments’ objective to maintain safe communities (box C.4).

Box C.4 Re-offending rates ‘Re-offending rates’ are defined as the extent to which people who have had contact with the criminal justice system are re-arrested, re-convicted, or return to corrective services (either prison or community corrections), and is measured by: the proportion of offenders who were proceeded against more than once by police during 2014-15 the proportion of adults released from prison during 2013-14 who returned to corrective services (either prison or community corrections) within two years the proportion of adults who were discharged from community corrections orders during 2013-14 who returned with a new correctional sanction within two years. Repeat offender data are difficult to interpret. A low proportion of repeat offenders may indicate an effective justice system discouraging repeat offending. However, a high proportion of repeat offenders may indicate more effective policing. Repeat offending rates are not weighted to account for the nature of the re-offence. For example, a return to prison for a traffic offence is counted in the same manner as a return for a more serious offence such as armed robbery. Rates of return to corrective services also do not take into account any further: arrests re-offending that leads to outcomes that are not administered by corrective services, for example, fines correctional sanctions for a repeat offender who has previously been sentenced to only non-correctional sanctions, for example, fines. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time, but there are jurisdictional differences in how alleged offenders are dealt with and the range of court and non-court actions available to police incomplete for the current reporting period. All required 2014-15 and 2015-16 data were not available for WA. Source: ABS (2016) Recorded Crime Offenders, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4519.0; State and Territory governments (unpublished).

Offenders proceeded against more than once by police

Table C.3 provides data on the number of times offenders, aged 10 years and over, were proceeded against by police in 2014-15. The data represent each separate occasion that police initiated a legal action against an offender. Depending on the type of offence

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.13

committed, police will either initiate a court or non-court action. Court actions involve the laying of charges against an offender that must be answered in court. Non-court actions can include informal or formal warnings, conferencing, counselling, drug diversionary schemes or the issuing of penalty notices which do not require an appearance in court. In each State and Territory (except WA for whom data were not available), the majority of offenders (around three-quarters) were proceeded against only once during 2014-15.

Table C.3 Number of times offenders were proceeded against during 2014-15 (per cent)a

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

1

72.4

76.1

68.6

na

83.7

77.8

85.0

66.4

2

14.0

13.0

16.4

na

9.9

12.7

9.8

17.5

3

5.6

5.0

6.7

na

3.2

4.5

3.4

6.8

4

2.8

2.5

3.3

na

1.5

2.0

1.0

3.6

5

5.2

3.4

5.0

na

1.6

2.9

0.7

5.6

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

na

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total repeat offenders

27.6

23.9

31.4

na

16.2

22.1

14.9

33.5

a See box C.4 and table CA.5 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. na Not available.

Source: ABS (2016), Recorded Crime – Offenders, selected states and territories, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4519.0; table CA.5.

Adult offenders released from prison

The most recent data for adult offenders released from prison who returned to corrective services within two years relate to prisoners released during 2013-14 who returned to corrective services by 2015-16 (table C.4). Nationally, 44.6 per cent of released prisoners had returned to prison within two years, while 52.6 per cent had returned to corrective services.

Table C.4 Prisoners released during 2013-14 who returned to corrective services with a new correctional sanction within two years (per cent)a

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Prisoners returning to:

prison

50.7

42.8

39.7

38.1

36.9

39.8

41.0

58.3

44.6

corrective servicesb

55.1

55.6

49.8

45.7

46.1

49.8

61.3

61.0

52.6

a Refers to all prisoners released following a term of sentenced imprisonment including prisoners subject to correctional supervision following release, that is, offenders released on parole or other community corrections orders. Data include returns to prison resulting from the cancellation of a parole order. b Includes a prison sentence or a community corrections order.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).

C.14 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table C.5 provides a time series on the proportion of adult offenders released from prison who returned to prison under sentence within two years. The proportion has been increasing each year since 2011-12.

Table C.5 Prisoners released who returned to prison under sentence within two years (per cent)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SAa

Tas

ACT

NTb

Aust

2011-12

42.5

35.1

36.1

36.1

29.1

36.4

40.8

60.7

39.5

2012-13

42.7

36.8

38.3

36.3

29.0

39.1

46.6

62.4

40.7

2013-14

45.8

39.5

39.8

39.0

38.4

39.3

41.9

59.1

42.7

2014-15

48.1

44.1

40.9

36.2

38.1

39.9

38.7

59.5

44.5

2015-16

50.7

42.8

39.7

38.1

36.9

39.8

41.0

58.3

44.6

a Rates for SA from 2013-14 onwards reflect legislative changes introduced in August 2012 that provides opportunity for parole to be cancelled for a breach of any condition, resulting in return to prison to serve the remaining sentence(s). Previously, breaches of only certain types of conditions would result in cancellation of parole. b NT figures for 2011-12 to 2014-15 have been revised and Australian averages adjusted accordingly.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).

Adult offenders discharged from community corrections orders

Table C.6 provides data on offenders who were discharged after serving orders administered by community corrections, including post-prison orders such as parole or licence, and then returned with a new correctional sanction within two years. Nationally, of those offenders who were released during 2013-14, 14.8 per cent had returned with a new correctional sanction to community corrections, and 23.5 per cent had returned to corrective services by 2015-16.

Table C.6 Offenders discharged from community corrections orders during 2013-14 who returned with a new correctional sanction within two years (per cent)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Offenders returning to:

community corrections

12.1

21.1

15.8

10.6

12.1

19.2

15.4

11.1

14.8

corrective servicesa

23.4

28.9

21.7

16.5

21.0

24.1

15.8

32.1

23.5

a Includes a prison sentence or a community corrections order.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.15

Justice staff

‘Justice staff’ employed relative to the population is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide justice services in an equitable and accessible manner (box C.5).

Box C.5 Justice staff Data on justice staff are currently available for police and courts, and are defined by two measures: FTE Police staff per 100 000 population. Police staff are categorised according to operational status. An operational police staff member is any member whose primary duty is the delivery of police or police-related services to an external client (primarily members of the public but may also include other government departments). Specialised activities may be outsourced or undertaken by administrative (unsworn) staff. FTE judicial officers per 100 000 population. A judicial officer is defined as an officer who can make enforceable orders of the court. The number of judicial officers is expressed in full time equivalent units and where judicial officers have both judicial and non-judicial work, it refers to the proportion of time allocated to judicial work. A higher proportion of judicial staff per population indicates potentially greater access to the judicial system. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions. Source: Chapters 6 and 7.

Police staff

Nationally, there was a total of 64 324 operational and 6327 non-operational staff in 2015-16 — approximately 91 per cent of police staff were operational — with 269 FTE operational police staff per 100 000 people (figure C.7). The number of staff per 100 000 people varies across jurisdictions, in part, due to differing operating environments.

Judicial officers

Nationally, there were 4.5 FTE judicial officers per 100 000 population in 2015-16 (figure C.8). Factors such as geographical dispersion, judicial workload and population density should be considered when comparing data on judicial officers.

C.16 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure C.7 Police staff per 100 000 population, 2015-16a

a See box C.5 and tables CA.6 and 6A.1-8 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table CA.6 and 6A.1-8.

Figure C.8 Judicial officers per 100 000 population, 2015-16a

a See box C.5 and tables CA.7 and 7A.27 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table CA.7 and 7A.27.

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.17

Higher court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding

‘Higher court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide justice services in an equitable and accessible manner (box C.6).

Box C.6 Higher court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding ‘Higher court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding’ is defined as the number of higher courtsfinalised adjudicated defendants who either submitted a guilty plea or were found guilty, as a proportion of the total number of higher courts adjudicated defendants. A high or increasing proportion of higher courts adjudicated defendants submitting a guilty plea or being the subject of a guilty finding is desirable. This indicator does not provide information on the number of defendants where police have identified a likely offender, but chose not to bring the likely offender to trial due to a variety of factors, nor to cases that have been finalised by a non-adjudicated method. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2014-15 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally in 2014-15, the proportion of higher court finalised adjudicated defendants who either submitted a guilty plea or were found guilty was 92.8 per cent (figure C.9).

C.18 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure C.9 Proportion of higher court finalised adjudicated defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding, 2014-15a

a See box C.6 and table CA.8 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats..

Source: ABS (2016) Criminal Courts, Australia. Cat. no. 4513.0; table CA.8.

C.3 Cross-cutting and interface issues

Although service areas are represented in separate chapters in this Report, performance results are to some extent interdependent. Changes to the functions and operations of each element of the justice system can affect the other parts of the system, for example, the effect of:

police services on the courts through the implementation of initiatives such as police cautions and other diversionary strategies

police and courts on corrective services, such as use of court diversion schemes, bail and the range of sentencing options available

correctional systems’ services on courts sentencing decisions through court advice services.

There is a trend toward the delivery of justice services through partnerships between agencies, in order to address complex issues and client needs. For example, bail or housing support programs, Neighbourhood Justice centres in Victoria, specialist courts such as Indigenous and drug courts, and adoption of restorative justice principles.

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW C.19

C.4 References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics)

—— 2016, Crime Victimisation Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0, Canberra.

—— 2016, Criminal Courts Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4513.0, Canberra.

—— 2016, Recorded Crime — Offenders, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4519.0, Canberra.

ACC (Australian Crime Commission)

—— 2013, Organised crime in Australia 2013, https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/intelligence-products/organised-crime-australia/organised-crime-australia-2013 (accessed 23 July 2015)

—— 2015, Organised crime in Australia 2015, https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/intelligence-products/organised-crime-australia/organised-crime-australia-2015 (accessed 23 July 2015).Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department 2009, A strategic framework for access to justice in the federal civil justice system. Report by the Access to Justice Taskforce, Canberra.

Coumarelos, C., Macourt, D., People, J., McDonald, H.M., Wei, Z., Iriana, R. and Ramsey, S. 2012. Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney.

Forsythe, L and Adams, K 2009. Mental health, abuse, drug use and crime: does gender matter? Trends and Issues in crime and criminal justice no. 38, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Productivity Commission 2014, Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra.

Smith, RG, Jorna, P, Sweeney, J and Fuller, G 2014, Counting the costs of crime in Australia: A 2011 estimate. Research and Public Policy Series no. 129, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Rollings, K. 2008, Counting the costs of crime in Australia. Research and Public Policy Series no. 91, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Weatherburn, D 2001, What causes crime? Crime and Justice Bulletin no. 54, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

CA

Justice sector overview- attachment

DefinitionsfortheindicatorsanddescriptorsinthisattachmentareintheJusticeSectorOverviewandchapters6,7and8.Dataforpastyearshavebeenrevisedforsomejurisdictions,wherethishasoccurred,totalsandanyderiveddatahavebeenrecalculated.ForthisreasondataforpastyearspresentedinthisReportmayvaryfromfigurespublishedinearliereditionsofthisReport.

This file is available on the Review website at www.pc.gov.au/rogs/2017.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

CONTENTS

Attachment contents

Table CA.1

Feelings of safety at home alone during the night ("safe" or "very safe")

Table CA.2

Feelings of safety in public places during the night ("safe" or "very safe")

Table CA.3

Estimatedvictimsofselectedpersonalcrimes,reportedandunreported(no.in'000andno. per 100 000 people) 2014-15

Table CA.4

Estimatedvictimsofselectedpropertycrimes,reportedandunreported(numberin'000and number per 100 000 households), 2014-15

Table CA.5

Number of times offenders proceeded against by police (per cent)

Table CA.6

Police staff, FTE and per population

Table CA.7

Judicial officers, FTE and per population

Table CA.8

Proportionofhighercourtsfinalisedadjudicateddefendantsresultinginaguiltypleaorfinding REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of CONTENTS

TABLE CA.1

Table CA.1

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2015-16

During the night

%

90.2

87.1

88.9

84.1

90.4

88.3

92.6

84.0

88.5

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

2014-15

During the night

%

88.4

89.5

91.4

88.1

88.9

90.9

92.7

85.1

89.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

2013-14

During the night

%

87.5

90.4

89.7

86.0

90.4

92.9

93.8

85.9

89.0

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

2012-13

During the night

%

87.9

88.8

88.5

81.6

86.5

89.9

90.3

84.0

87.5

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

2011-12

During the night

%

87.6

88.9

89.8

83.0

86.0

90.3

91.0

81.3

87.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

2010-11

During the night

%

85.9

87.7

89.8

85.1

84.8

88.9

88.6

81.5

87.1

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

2009-10

During the night

%

82.5

85.1

86.5

81.4

84.8

87.7

86.2

82.0

84.2

Sample size

no.

4 177

8 554

6 263

3 721

3 287

2 422

2 419

1 529

32 372

(a)

(b)

Source:

Unit

Feelings of safety at home alone during the night ("safe" or "very safe") (a), (b)

Survey results are subject to sampling error.

Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) (various years), National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished); Table 6A.19

Foryearspriorto2015-16,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.1

TABLE CA.2

Table CA.2

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2015-16

Walking alone

%

53.9

48.6

51.3

51.0

52.0

58.5

57.1

44.7

51.7

On public transport

%

25.8

25.6

23.6

18.3

25.0

18.8

31.9

12.6

24.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

2014-15

Walking alone

%

54.3

52.1

52.9

49.3

50.5

57.5

58.4

43.8

52.8

On public transport

%

30.3

28.5

29.6

20.7

23.1

24.3

32.9

12.0

27.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

2013-14

Walking alone

%

53.0

50.2

49.5

47.6

48.6

58.9

54.4

43.7

50.8

On public transport

%

26.3

23.5

25.4

17.3

25.5

22.2

32.5

13.9

24.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

2012-13

Walking alone

%

49.1

51.2

51.7

44.4

49.7

55.3

55.1

42.2

49.8

On public transport

%

26.6

24.2

30.5

22.5

24.0

21.6

33.0

18.1

26.0

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

2011-12

Walking alone

%

51.1

53.5

53.5

45.5

49.0

56.0

55.1

40.7

51.6

On public transport

%

25.8

23.7

30.1

18.8

26.4

22.7

33.6

18.8

25.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

2010-11

Walking alone

%

46.2

47.7

46.9

44.0

43.2

53.7

49.1

35.7

46.4

On public transport

%

25.9

21.7

30.0

20.0

22.8

24.0

34.2

16.9

24.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

2009-10

Walking alone

%

58.5

59.4

62.7

58.4

59.7

65.1

60.5

54.6

59.8

On public transport

%

29.9

25.8

35.4

23.8

30.0

31.4

39.8

26.1

29.5

Sample size

no.

4 177

8 554

6 263

3 721

3 287

2 422

2 419

1 529

32 372

(a)

(b)

Source:

Feelings of safety in public places during the night ("safe" or "very safe") (a), (b)

Foryearspriorto2015-16,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Survey results are subject to sampling error.

Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished); Tables 6A.20 - 6A.21

Unit

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.2

TABLE CA.3

Table CA.3

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Number '000

Physical assault

99.0

97.8

91.1

53.5

36.8

10.4

7.0

5.9

400.4

Threatened assault

126.3

130.8

110.4

60.6

40.7

12.6

10.3

4.2

491.9

Robbery

12.7

14.8

10.8

9.4

6.6

2.1

1.1

np

55.9

Sexual assault

18.7

16.5

12.6

np

1.1

np

np

np

58.6

No. per 100 000 people

Physical assault

1640.6

2064.9

2451.0

2639.8

2701.3

2520.0

2331.8

4105.8

2137.2

Threatened assault

2093.1

2761.6

2970.2

2990.1

2987.6

3053.1

3431.0

2922.8

2625.6

Robbery

210.5

312.5

290.6

463.8

484.5

508.8

np

np

298.4

Sexual assault

325.2

365.3

356.9

np

84.5

np

np

np

328.5

(a)

(b)

(c) Threatened assault includes face-to-face incidents only.

(d)

(e)

np Not published.

Source:

ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0; Table 6A.27.

AvictimisdefinedasapersonreportingatleastoneoftheoffencesincludedintheCrimeVictimisationSurvey.Personswhohavebeenavictimofmultipleoffencetypesduringthereferenceperiodwerecountedonceforeachoffencetypeforwhichtheywereavictimofatleastoneincident.Individualsmaybecountedmultipletimesacrossoffencetypesandconsequentlytheestimatedtotalnumberofvictimscannot be calculated from this table.

Estimated victims of selected personal crimes, reported and unreported (no. in '000 and no. per 100 000 people) 2014-15(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Threatened assault includes face-to-face incidents only.

No.per100000werecalculatedusingasdenominators,thepopulationspublishedintherelevantABSdatacubesforpersonsaged15yearsandover.Forsexualassaultquestions,surveyrespondentswereaged 18 years and over.

Some robbery and sexual assault rates include data points with large standard errors so that comparisons between jurisdictions and between years should be interpreted with caution.

For more information on data quality, including collection methodologies and data limitations, see Crime Victimisation, Australia (Cat. No. 4530.0) on the ABS website.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.3

TABLE CA.4

Table CA.4

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Number '000

Break-in

57.9

55.9

50.2

47.4

17.1

6.1

4.0

3.9

242.5

Attempted break-in

48.9

37.5

35.6

35.8

12.7

3.4

4.2

2.4

180.6

Motor vehicle theft

11.6

14.0

9.1

8.6

4.4

2.1

0.9

1.0

53.4

Theft from motor vehicle

57.5

74.6

37.9

53.1

19.5

3.8

6.3

2.6

254.7

Malicious property damage

137.5

142.2

76.2

86.0

40.4

13.2

9.8

4.7

511.4

Other theft

75.4

75.2

47.8

30.3

21.1

6.5

4.2

2.4

261.4

No. per 100 000 households

Break-in

2 051

2 492

2 788

4 956

2 496

2 895

2 738

5 982

2 715

Attempted break-in

1 732

1 672

1 977

3 743

1 854

1 614

2 875

3 681

2 022

Motor vehicle theft

411

624

506

899

642

997

np

1 534

598

Theft from motor vehicle

2 037

3 325

2 105

5 552

2 846

1 804

4 312

3 988

2 852

Malicious property damage

4 871

6 339

4 233

8 991

5 896

6 265

6 708

7 209

5 726

Other theft

2 671

3 352

2 655

3 168

3 079

3 085

2 875

3 681

2 927

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

np Not published.

Sources:

ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0; Data cube 45300DO003; Table 6A.28.

Avictimofbreak-inorattemptedbreak-inisdefinedasahouseholdexperiencingatleastonebreak-inorattemptedbreak-in.Break-inisdefinedasanincidentwheretherespondent’shomeincludingagarageorshed,hadbeenbrokeninto.Break-inoffencesrelatingtorespondents’carsorgardensareexcluded.

Estimated victims of selected property crimes, reported and unreported (number in '000 and number per 100 000 households),2014-15 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Avictimofmotorvehicletheftisdefinedasahouseholdreportingatleastonemotorvehicletheft.Victimswerecountedonceonly,regardlessofthenumberofincidentsofmotorvehicletheft.Motorvehicletheftisdefinedasanincidentwhereamotorvehiclewasstolenfromanymemberoftherespondent’shousehold.Itincludesprivatelyownedvehiclesandexcludesvehiclesusedmainlyforcommercial business/business purposes.

For more information on data quality, including collection methodologies and data limitations, see Crime Victimisation, Australia (Cat. No. 4530.0) on the ABS website.

AvictimisdefinedasahouseholdreportingatleastoneoftheoffencesincludedintheCrimeVictimisationSurvey.Householdsthathavebeenavictimofmultipleoffencetypesduringthereferenceperiodwerecountedonceforeachoffencetypeforwhichtheywereavictimofatleastoneincident.

NTdatarefermainlytourbanareasandexcludepeoplelivingindiscreteAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander communities in remote and very remote areas.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.4

TABLE CA.5

Table CA.5

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

2014-15

%

72.4

76.1

68.6

na

83.7

77.8

85.0

66.4

%

14.0

13.0

16.4

na

9.9

12.7

9.8

17.5

%

5.6

5.0

6.7

na

3.2

4.5

3.4

6.8

%

2.8

2.5

3.3

na

1.5

2.0

1.0

3.6

%

5.2

3.4

5.0

na

1.6

2.9

0.7

5.6

2013-14

%

75.2

77.6

69.7

na

88.1

78.1

83.7

65.8

%

13.4

12.5

16.1

na

6.9

13.4

10.9

18.0

%

5.0

4.5

6.4

na

2.5

4.1

3.5

7.7

%

2.4

2.3

3.1

na

1.1

2.0

1.1

3.3

%

4.0

3.0

4.7

na

1.3

2.5

0.7

5.1

2012-13

%

76.4

78.9

70.7

na

85.7

77.2

84.8

69.7

%

13.1

12.1

16.0

na

8.3

13.6

10.3

17.0

%

4.8

4.3

6.0

na

3.0

4.4

2.9

6.7

%

2.2

2.0

3.0

na

1.4

2.1

1.2

3.1

%

3.4

2.8

4.2

na

1.6

2.8

1.0

3.4

2011-12

%

77.0

80.2

72.1

na

84.1

76.7

85.3

73.4

%

13.0

11.9

15.4

na

9.4

13.4

9.4

16.8

%

4.7

3.9

5.8

na

3.2

4.6

3.2

5.8

%

2.2

1.7

2.7

na

1.5

2.2

1.0

2.3

%

3.2

2.3

4.0

na

1.7

3.1

1.0

1.8

2010-11

%

77.3

81.0

72.9

na

85.6

75.8

83.1

76.5

%

13.1

11.5

15.4

na

8.8

13.7

11.0

14.7

%

4.6

3.8

5.6

na

2.9

4.9

3.7

5.0

%

2.1

1.6

2.5

na

1.4

2.4

1.3

2.2

%

2.9

2.1

3.6

na

1.3

3.3

0.8

1.6

2009-10

%

78.5

80.4

72.6

na

84.8

75.3

83.3

75.0

%

12.9

11.9

15.7

na

9.5

14.1

10.7

15.4

%

4.4

3.8

5.5

na

3.2

4.6

3.4

5.4

%

1.9

1.7

2.6

na

1.3

2.5

1.4

2.2

%

2.2

2.2

3.6

na

1.2

3.4

1.3

1.9

(a)

Unit

1

2

3

4

1

3

4

5 or more

1

2

3

4

5 or more

5 or more

1

2

3

4

5 or more

1

2

3

4

5 or more

Number of times offenders proceeded against by police (per cent) (a), (b), (c), (d)

WAoffenderdataarerecordedontwodifferentsystemsandpoliceproceedingscannotbematchedbetweenthesetwosystems.WAdataarethereforenotpublished,aspoliceproceedings would be overstated.

1

2

3

4

5 or more

2

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.5

TABLE CA.5

Table CA.5

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Unit

Number of times offenders proceeded against by police (per cent) (a), (b), (c), (d)

(b)

(c)

(d)

na

Not available

Source:

InSA,GeneralExpiationNotices(GENs)maybeissuedforpublicorderoffencesandoffencesagainstjusticeandarestoredonaninfringementdatabasethatcannotbelinkedwithotherpolicedatabases.Offenderswithaprincipaloffenceofpublicorderoffencesoroffencesagainstjusticemaybecountedtwiceiftheyhavecommittedanoffenceinadditiontoreceiving a General Expiation Notice (GEN). Therefore SA data may be overstated.

DatafortheACTincludecriminalinfringementnotices(CINs).AsCINsarerecordedseparatelytootheroffencesitispossiblethatanoffenderwithanoffenceinadditiontoaCINmay be counted twice. Therefore ACT data may be overstated.

ABS (2016) Recorded Crime - Offenders, Cat. no. 4519.0, Canberra.

For more information on data quality, including collection methodologies and data limitations, see Recorded Crime - Offenders (Cat. No. 4519.0) on the ABS website.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 2 of TABLE CA.5

TABLE CA.6

Table CA.6

Police staff, FTE and per population (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2015-16

Operational staff

no.

17 497

16 798

13 695

7 183

5 219

1 323

882

1 727

64 324

Total staff

no.

19 975

17 924

14 428

8 301

5 671

1 568

968

1 816

70 651

Operational per 100 000

no.

228

280

285

276

306

256

224

708

269

Total staff per 100 000

no.

260

299

300

319

333

303

246

744

295

2014-15

Operational staff

no.

17 525

16 182

13 350

6 995

5 274

1 277

848

1 710

63 161

Total staff

no.

20 031

17 200

14 237

8 005

5 662

1 443

932

1 772

69 282

Operational per 100 000

no.

232

275

281

271

312

248

219

700

267

Total staff per 100 000

no.

265

292

300

310

335

280

240

725

294

2013-14

Operational staff

no.

17 334

15 724

13 863

6 895

5 272

1 280

888

1 750

62 967

Total staff

no.

19 760

16 956

15 031

7 851

5 638

1 451

975

1 800

69 462

Operational per 100 000

no.

232

272

296

270

314

249

231

721

270

Total staff per 100 000

no.

265

293

320

308

336

282

254

742

298

2012-13

Operational staff

no.

17 272

14 881

13 360

6 790

5 253

1 249

879

1 651

61 297

Total staff

no.

19 720

15 762

14 750

7 789

5 584

1 402

974

1 789

67 770

Operational per 100 000

no.

235

262

290

275

316

244

232

697

268

Total staff per 100 000

no.

268

278

320

315

336

274

257

755

296

2011-12

Operational staff

no.

17 029

14 410

13 106

6 754

5 256

1 354

870

1 620

60 364

Total staff

no.

19 332

15 626

14 672

7 708

5 639

1 514

949

1 716

67 156

Operational per 100 000

no.

235

259

290

283

320

265

235

697

268

Total staff per 100 000

no.

267

280

325

323

343

296

256

738

299

2010-11

Operational staff

no.

17 033

14 044

13 220

6 494

5 143

1 415

907

1 614

59 821

Total staff

no.

19 266

15 063

14 739

7 648

5 536

1 578

991

1 693

66 514

Operational per 100 000

no.

237

256

298

280

315

277

249

701

270

Total staff per 100 000

no.

268

274

332

330

339

309

272

735

300

2009-10

Operational staff

no.

16 802

12 945

13 087

6 382

5 105

1 372

798

1 528

58 019

Total staff

no.

18 955

14 380

14 406

7 379

5 565

1 573

935

1 637

64 830

Operational per 100 000

no.

237

239

300

282

315

271

223

671

265

Total staff per 100 000

no.

267

265

330

326

344

311

261

719

296

2008-09

Operational staff

no.

16 677

11 074

11 543

6 324

4 885

1 399

819

1 472

54 193

Total staff

no.

19 153

13 901

14 222

7 474

5 431

1 602

945

1 587

64 315

Operational per 100 000

no.

238

208

270

286

306

279

233

661

252

Total staff per 100 000

no.

274

262

333

338

340

319

269

713

299

Unit

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.6

TABLE CA.6

Table CA.6

Police staff, FTE and per population (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Unit

(a)

Source:

DatacompriseallFTEstaffexceptintheNTbetween2007-08and2012-13,wheredataarebasedonaheadcount at 30 June.

State and territory governments (unpublished); Tables 6A.1 - 8

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 2 of TABLE CA.6

TABLE CA.7

Table CA.7

Judicial officers, FTE and per population (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust crts

Aust

2015-16

Total judicial officers

no.

263.3

250.8

152.6

120.1

72.8

21.6

14.4

25.6

150.8

1 072.0

Total per 100 000

3.4

4.2

3.2

4.6

4.3

4.2

3.7

10.5

0.6

4.5

2014-15

Total judicial officers

no.

261.3

248.0

156.3

118.8

69.9

21.4

13.6

25.8

150.1

1 065.1

Total per 100 000

3.5

4.2

3.3

4.6

4.1

4.2

3.5

10.5

0.6

4.5

2013-14

Total judicial officers

no.

264.2

245.3

153.2

117.1

72.0

20.8

13.0

24.4

159.2

1 069.2

Total per 100 000

3.5

4.2

3.3

4.6

4.3

4.0

3.4

10.1

0.7

4.6

2012-13

Total judicial officers

no.

264.2

240.8

154.3

123.1

75.0

20.8

13.5

25.7

149.7

1 067.0

Total per 100 000

3.6

4.2

3.3

5.0

4.5

4.1

3.5

10.8

0.7

4.7

2011-12

Total judicial officers

no.

270.3

241.4

152.8

124.5

76.5

20.8

12.5

25.7

150.4

1 074.9

Total per 100 000

3.7

4.3

3.4

5.2

4.7

4.1

3.4

11.0

0.7

4.8

2010-11

Total judicial officers

no.

264.9

230.4

148.1

134.2

76.1

20.8

13.7

25.0

144.1

1 057.3

Total per 100 000

3.7

4.2

3.3

5.8

4.7

4.1

3.7

10.9

0.6

4.8

(a)

Source:

Unit

Judicialofficersareofficerswhocanmakeenforceableordersofthecourt.Theyincludejudges,associate judges, magistrates, masters, coroners and judicial registrars.

State and Territory and Australian governments (unpublished); Table 7A.27 REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.7

TABLE CA.8

Table CA.8

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2014-15

%

92.6

90.6

94.0

93.5

92.8

93.1

87.1

95.1

92.8

2013-14

%

92.4

92.0

92.7

92.7

93.2

90.0

87.7

98.0

92.5

2012-13

%

91.7

91.2

93.0

92.8

90.1

91.0

94.6

95.8

92.1

2011-12

%

89.9

92.0

92.1

91.5

88.6

93.8

89.6

93.1

91.3

2010-11

%

92.2

90.9

93.1

90.8

90.5

90.9

90.5

89.9

91.8

2009-10

%

91.9

91.1

92.7

89.7

89.5

94.4

84.9

94.5

91.5

2008-09

%

92.2

91.5

94.6

89.6

89.2

95.1

84.0

89.9

92.2

(a)

(b)

Source:

Proportion of higher courts finalised adjudicated defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding (per cent) (a)

HighercourtscomprisetheSupremeCourtandtheDistrictcourts.Adefendantcanbeeither a person or organisation against whom one or more criminal charges have been laid.

ABS (various years) Criminal Courts Australia,Cat. no. 4513.0, Canberra.

For more information on data quality, including collection methodologies and data limitations, see Criminal Courts Australia (Cat. No. 4513.0) on the ABS website.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

JUSTICE SECTOR OVERVIEW

PAGE 1 of TABLE CA.8

POLICE SERVICES 6.1

6 Police services

CONTENTS

6.1 Profile of police services 6.1

6.2 Framework of performance indicators 6.5

6.3 Key performance indicator results 6.7

6.4 Definitions of key terms 6.33

6.5 References 6.37

Attachment tables Attachment tables are identified in references throughout this chapter by a ‘6A’ prefix (for example, table 6A.1) and are available from the website www.pc.gov.au/rogs/2017.

This chapter reports on the performance of police services covering the operations of the police agencies of each State and Territory government.

All abbreviations used in this Report are available in a complete list in volume A: Approach to performance reporting.

6.1 Profile of police services

Service overview

Police services are the principal means through which State and Territory governments pursue the achievement of a safe and secure environment for the community. Across jurisdictions, police activity can be grouped into four broad activity areas:

Community safety – preserving public order and promoting a safer community

Crime – investigating crime and identifying and apprehending offenders

Road safety – targeted operations to reduce the incidence of traffic offences and through attendance at, and investigation of, road traffic collisions and incidents

Judicial services – support to the judicial process including the provision of safe custody for alleged offenders.

6.2 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Police services also respond to more general needs in the community — for example, working with emergency management organisations and a wide range of government services and community groups, and advising on general policing and crime issues.

Roles and responsibilities

Policing services are predominantly the responsibility of State and Territory government agencies. They include the ACT community policing function performed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) under an arrangement between the ACT and the Commonwealth Minister for Justice.

The Australian Government is responsible for the AFP. Data for the national policing function of the AFP and other national non-police law enforcement bodies (such as the Australian Crime Commission) are not included in this Report.

Funding

Funding for police services comes almost exclusively from State and Territory government budgets, with some limited specific purpose Australian Government grants. Nationally in 2015-16, total recurrent expenditure was $11.0 billion (table 6A.10).

Size and scope of sector

Client groups

Broadly, the entire community is a ‘client’ of the police. Some members of the community, who have more direct dealings with the police, can be considered specific client groups, for example:

victims of crime

those suspected of, or charged with, committing offences1

those reporting criminal incidents

those involved in traffic-related incidents

third parties (such as witnesses to crime and people reporting collisions)

those requiring police services for non-crime-related matters.

1 The use of the term ‘offender’ in this chapter refers to a person who is alleged to have committed an offence. It differs from the definition used in chapter 8 (‘Corrective services’), where the term ‘offender’ refers to a person who has been convicted of an offence and is subject to a correctional sentence.

POLICE SERVICES 6.3

Staffing

Police staff may be categorised in two different ways:

by ‘sworn’ status — sworn police officers exercise police powers, including the power to arrest, summons, caution, detain, fingerprint and search (tables 6A.1–8). Specialised activities may be outsourced or undertaken by administrative (unsworn) staff.

by operational status — an operational police staff member is any member (sworn or unsworn) whose primary duty is the delivery of police or police-related services to an external client (where an external client predominately refers to members of the public but may also include law enforcement outputs delivered to other government departments).

Operational status is considered the better estimate for the number of police staff actively engaged in the delivery of police-related services. Nationally in 2015-16, 91.0 per cent of the 70 651 police staff were operational (an increase from 84.3 per cent in 2008-09) (table 6A.11). This equates to 295 per 100 000 people, but varies across jurisdictions, in part, due to differing operating environments (figure 6.1).

Time series data for police staffing are reported in tables 6A.1–8, 6A.11, 6A.17 and 6A.18.

Figure 6.1 Police staff per 100 000 people, 2015-16a

a See tables 6A.1–6A.8 for detailed footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); tables 6A.1–6A.8; ABS (2016) Australian Demographic Statistics, December 2015, Cat. no. 3101.0; table 2A.2.

0200400600800NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustStaff/100 000 peopleOperationalNon-operational

6.4 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Responsiveness

The responsiveness of police to calls for assistance is critical to the effectiveness of police services. Although the Steering Committee considers nationally comparable response times reporting a priority for this Report currently, there is no consistent public reporting of response times across states and territories. Publicly available data are in box 6.1.

Box 6.1 Police response times NSW, Qld, WA SA and ACT police all publish response times data in annual reports. Other jurisdictions do not report response times as part of their corporate reporting, and have advised they are unable to provide these data for this Report. NSW Police report the number of urgent (imminent threat to life or property) response calls and the percentage attended within a target time of 12 minutes. In 2015-16, NSW Police responded to 119 404 urgent response calls, attending 77.2 per cent of urgent duty jobs within the 12 minute target time. Queensland Police report the percentage of code 1 and code 2 incidents attended within 12 minutes. Data includes geographic areas covered by the Queensland Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System. Code 1 and 2 incidents include very urgent matters when danger to human life is imminent and urgent matters involving injury or present threat of injury to person or property. In 2015-16, QLD Police attended 79.6 per cent of urgent matters within the 12 minute target time. WA Police aim to respond to 80 per cent of priority 1 and 2 incidents — situations that require urgent attendance and include an imminent threat to life, serious offence or incident in progress — within 12 minutes in the Perth metropolitan area, and reported 78.2 per cent meeting this target in 2015-16 (an improvement of 8.7 percentage points from 2014-15). The target for priority 3 incidents — situations that require routine attendance and include an offence in progress/suspect at scene or the preservation of evidence — is 80 per cent within 60 minutes (82.8 per cent achieved in 2015-16). SA Police reported that 84.3 per cent of Grade 1 taskings in the metropolitan area were responded to within 15 minutes in 2015-16. ACT Police reports response time targets for three incident categories: Priority One incidents (life threatening or critical situations) are 80 per cent or more of responses within 10 minutes (87.8 per cent achieved in 2015-16). Priority Two incidents (situations where the information provided indicates that time is important but not critical) are 80 per cent within 20 minutes (88.8 per cent achieved in 2015-16). Priority Three incidents (situations where there is no immediate danger to safety or property but police attendance or response is needed no later than 48 hours from the initial contact by the complainant or a time agreed with the complainant) is 90 per cent within 48 hours (99.4 per cent achieved in 2015-16). Source: State and Territory government Annual Reports.

POLICE SERVICES 6.5

6.2 Framework of performance indicators

The framework of performance indicators is based on governments’ common objectives for police services (box 6.2).

Box 6.2 Objectives for police services Police services aim to contribute to a safe and secure community that enables people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely. To achieve these aims, governments seek to provide police services that: are accessible, and responsive to community needs support the judicial process to bring to justice those people responsible for committing an offence provide safe custodial services are delivered with integrity, honesty and fairness promote safer behaviour on roads respond, co–ordinate or contribute to disaster and emergency management. Governments aim for police services to meet these objectives in an equitable and efficient manner.

The performance indicator framework provides information on equity, efficiency and effectiveness, and distinguishes the outputs and outcomes of police services (figure 6.2).

The performance indicator framework shows which data are complete and comparable in the 2017 Report. For data that are not considered directly comparable, text includes relevant caveats and supporting commentary. Chapter 1 discusses data comparability, data completeness and information on data quality from a Report-wide perspective. In addition to section 6.1, the Report’s Statistical context chapter (chapter 2) contains data that may assist in interpreting the performance indicators presented in this chapter.

Improvements to performance reporting for police services are ongoing and will include identifying indicators to fill gaps in reporting against key objectives, improving the comparability and completeness of data and reviewing proxy indicators to establish whether more direct measures can be developed.

6.6 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure 6.2 Police services performance indicator framework

EfficiencyOutputsOutcomesEquityStaffing by genderAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staffingDollars per personPerceptions of safetyCrime victimisationTraffic accident hospitalisationsObjectivesKey to indicators*TextTextMost recent data for all measures are either not comparable and/or not completeTextNo data reported and/or no measures yet developed Most recent data for all measures are comparable and completeMost recent data for at least one measure are comparable and completeText* A description of the comparability and completeness of each measure is provided in indicator interpretation boxes within the chapterPerceptions of crime problemsPERFORMANCEComplaintsJuvenile diversionsSatisfaction with police servicesRoad safetyDeaths in police custodyPerceptions of police integrityMagistrates court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or findingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in custodyRoad deathsProsecutions where costs were awarded against policeOutcomes of investigationsEffectiveness

POLICE SERVICES 6.7

6.3 Key performance indicator results

Outputs

Outputs are the services delivered (while outcomes are the impact of these services on the status of an individual or group) (see chapter 1). Output information is also critical for equitable, efficient and effective management of government services.

Equity

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staffing

‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staffing’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide police services in an equitable manner (box 6.3). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people might feel more comfortable in ‘accessing’ police services when they are able to deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander police staff. However, many factors influence the willingness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access police services, including familiarity with procedures for dealing with police.

Box 6.3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staffing ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staffing’ is defined as the proportion of police staff (operational and non-operational) from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds compared with the proportion of the population aged 20–64 years who are from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. A proportion of police staff from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds aged 20–64 years that is closer to the proportion of people aged 20–64 years who are from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds is desirable. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people might feel more comfortable in ‘accessing’ police services when they are able to deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander police staff. However, many factors influence the willingness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access police services, including familiarity with procedures for dealing with police. The process of identifying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff members generally relies on self-identification. Where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are asked to identify themselves, the accuracy of the data will partly depend on how they perceive the advantages (or disadvantages) of identification and whether these perceptions change over time. Data reported for this measure are: not comparable across jurisdictions or over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

6.8 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander police staff in 2015-16 was below the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the population aged 20–64 years for all jurisdictions except NSW and the ACT (figure 6.3). Time series data for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander police staffing are reported in tables 6A.1–8 and 6A.17.

Figure 6.3 Proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 20–64 years, 2015-16a

a See box 6.3 and table 6A.17 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.17.

Staffing by gender

‘Staffing by gender’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide police services in an equitable manner (box 6.4).

051015202530NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTPer centAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staffAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 20-64 years

POLICE SERVICES 6.9

Box 6.4 Staffing by gender ‘Police staffing by gender’ is defined as the number of female police staff (sworn and unsworn) divided by the total number of police staff. A higher proportion of female police staff is desirable. Women might feel more comfortable in ‘accessing’ police services in particular situations, such as in relation to sexual assault, when they are able to deal with female police staff. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally, 32.5 per cent of police staff were female in 2015-16, relatively unchanged for most jurisdictions over the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 (figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4 Female police staff as a proportion of all staffa

a See box 6.4 and table 6A.18 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.18.

Effectiveness

Road safety

‘Road safety’ is an indicator of governments’ objective of promoting safer behaviour on roads (box 6.5).

01020304050NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustPer cent 2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

6.10 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Box 6.5 Road safety ‘Road safety’ is defined by three measures: use of seatbelts, defined as the proportion of people who had driven in the previous 6 months and who indicated that, in that time, they had driven without wearing a seatbelt driving under the influence, defined as the proportion of people who had driven in the previous 6 months and who indicated that, in that time, they had driven when possibly over the alcohol limit degree of speeding, defined as the proportion of people who had driven in the previous 6 months and who indicated that, in that time, they had driven 10 kilometres per hour or more above the speed limit. For all three measures, ‘use’ refers to responses of ‘rarely’ or more often. A low or decreasing proportion of people who stated that they had driven without wearing a seatbelt, driven when possibly over the alcohol limit and/or driven 10 kilometres per hour or more above the speed limit is desirable. The use of seatbelts, the prevalence of driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding in the population is affected by a number of factors in addition to activities undertaken by police services, such as driver education and media campaigns. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally in 2015-16, of those people who had driven in the previous six months:

4.5 per cent reported driving without wearing a seat belt (figure 6.5)

7.1 per cent of people said they had driven when possibly over the blood alcohol limit (figure 6.6)

58.2 per cent of people reported having travelled 10 kilometres per hour or more above the speed limit (figure 6.7).

POLICE SERVICES 6.11

Figure 6.5 People who had driven in the previous six months without

wearing a seat belta

a See box 6.5 and table 6A.33 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); table 6A.33.

Figure 6.6 People who had driven in the previous six months when

possibly over the alcohol limita

a See box 6.5 and table 6A.34 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); table 6A.34.

0

3

6

9

12

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Per cent

2011-12 to 2014-15 2015-16

0

4

8

12

16

20

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Per cent

2011-12 to 2014-15 2015-16

6.12 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure 6.7 People who had driven in the previous six months 10 kilometres per hour or more above the speed limita

a See box 6.5 and table 6A.35 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); table 6A.35.

Deaths in police custody

‘Deaths in police custody’ is an indicator of governments’ objective of providing safe custodial services (box 6.6).

020406080NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustPer cent2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

POLICE SERVICES 6.13

Box 6.6 Deaths in police custody ‘Deaths in police custody’ is defined by two measures: total deaths in police custody and custody related operations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in police custody and custody related operations. Both measures refer to the death of a person who was in police custody; death caused or contributed to by traumatic injuries while in custody; death of a person who was fatally injured when police officers attempted to detain that person; or death of a person who was fatally injured when escaping or attempting to escape from police custody. No deaths or a decreasing number of deaths in custody and custody-related operations is desirable. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time incomplete for the current reporting period. All required data for 2014-15 are not available for NSW and Victoria.

Nationally in 2014-15, there were 11 deaths in police custody, of which five were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths (table 6.1). This number has reduced since 2007-08, predominately due to the decrease in non-Indigenous deaths (29 out of 34 deaths in 2007-08) (table 6A.38). However, as data are not available for NSW and Victoria, figures for 2014-15 are understated.

Table 6.1 Deaths in police custody and custody-related operationsa

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Non-Indigenous deaths

2014-15

na

na

3

2

1

6

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths

2014-15

na

na

1

2

2

5

Total deaths

2007-08

7

8

5

4

4

1

5

34

2008-09

6

3

8

8

6

1

5

37

2009-10

5

6

6

3

1

1

1

4

27

2010-11

6

1

7

6

2

2

1

25

2011-12

10

6

9

5

3

2

35

2012-13

5

2

4

6

1

18

2013-14

na

4

3

1

3

1

12

2014-15

na

na

4

4

1

2

11

a See box 6.6 and table 6A.38 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. Nil or rounded to zero. na Not available.

Source: AIC (various years, unpublished) Deaths in Custody, Australia; table 6A.38.

6.14 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Magistrates court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding

‘Magistrates court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding’ is an indicator of governments’ objective of supporting the judicial process to bring to justice those people responsible for committing an offence (box 6.7).

Box 6.7 Magistrates court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding ‘Magistrates court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding’ is defined as the number of finalised adjudicated defendants in lower courts who either submitted a guilty plea or were found guilty, as a proportion of the total number of magistrates court adjudicated defendants. A high or increasing proportion of magistrates court adjudicated defendants submitting a guilty plea or being the subject of a guilty finding is desirable. This indicator does not provide information on the number of cases where police have identified a likely offender but choose not to bring the likely offender to court due to a number of factors. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2014-15 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally, the proportion of magistrates court adjudicated defendants who either submitted a guilty plea or were found guilty was 97.8 per cent in 2014-15 (figure 6.8).

POLICE SERVICES 6.15

Figure 6.8 Proportion of magistrates court finalised adjudicated defendants resulting in a guilty plea or findinga

a See box 6.7 and table 6A.40 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ABS (2016d) Criminal Courts, Australia (various years), Cat. no. 4513.0; table 6A.40.

Satisfaction with police services

‘Satisfaction with police services’ is an indicator of governments’ objective of providing services that are accessible and responsive to community needs (box 6.8).

Box 6.8 Satisfaction with police services ‘Satisfaction with police services’ is defined as the proportion of people aged 18 years or over who were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with police services (whether or not they had contact with police services). Results are reported from the annual National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (NSCSP), a telephone-based survey of a sample from the general population. A high or increasing proportion of people who were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ is desirable. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally, 75.2 per cent of the general population were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the services provided by police in 2015-16 (table 6A.12). The proportion was higher for those

020406080100NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustPer cent2010-11 to 2013-142014-15

6.16 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

who had contact with police, and this was the case across all jurisdictions (tables 6A.12 and 6A.24). Nationally, 84.5 per cent were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the service they received during their most recent contact (figure 6.9).

Figure 6.9 People who were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with police in their most recent contacta

a See box 6.8 and table 6A.24 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); table 6A.24.

Perceptions of police integrity

‘Perceptions of police integrity’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services with integrity, honesty and fairness (box 6.9).

Box 6.9 Perceptions of police integrity ‘Perceptions of police integrity’ refers to public perceptions and is defined by three measures – the proportion of people who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that police: treat people fairly and equally perform the job professionally are honest. A high or increasing proportion of people who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with these statements is desirable. (continued next page)

020406080100NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustPer cent2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

POLICE SERVICES 6.17

Box 6.9 (continued) Public perceptions might not reflect actual levels of police integrity, because many factors, including hearsay and media reporting, might influence people’s perceptions of police integrity. Data reported for these measures are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally in 2015-16:

75.6 per cent of people ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that police treat people ‘fairly and equally’ (figure 6.10 and table 6A.14)

87.5 per cent of people ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that police perform the job ‘professionally’ (table 6A.13)

74.7 per cent of people ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ in 2015-16 that police are ‘honest’ (table 6A.15).

Figure 6.10 People who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that police treat people fairly and equallya

a See box 6.9 and table 6A.14 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); table 6A.14.

020406080100NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustPer cent2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

6.18 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Complaints

‘Complaints’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services with integrity, honesty and fairness (box 6.10).

Box 6.10 Complaints ‘Complaints’ is defined as the number of complaints made by the public against police per 100 000 people in the population, expressed in index form comparing values over time to a base period allocated a value of 100 (three-year average for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10). A low or decreasing number of complaints per 100 000 population is desirable. A high or increasing number of complaints does not necessarily indicate a lack of confidence in police; it can indicate greater confidence in complaints resolution. It is desirable to monitor changes in the reported rate to identify reasons for the changes and use this information to improve the manner in which police services are delivered. As complaints mechanisms differ across jurisdictions, data should be used only to view trends over time within jurisdictions. Data reported for this measure are: comparable over time within jurisdictions (subject to caveats) but are not comparable across jurisdictions because definitions of what constitutes a ‘complaint against police’ differ across jurisdictions complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Trends within jurisdictions have varied over time (figure 6.11). Table 6A.16 reports numbers per 100 000 people.

POLICE SERVICES 6.19

Figure 6.11 Trends in complaintsa

a See box 6.10 and table 6A.16 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.16.

Juvenile diversions

‘Juvenile diversions’ is an indicator of governments’ objective of supporting the judicial process to bring to justice those people responsible for committing an offence (box 6.11).

050100150200250NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTIndex2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

6.20 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Box 6.11 Juvenile diversions ‘Juvenile diversions’ is defined as the number of juveniles who would otherwise be proceeded against (that is, taken to court) but who are diverted by police, as a proportion of all juvenile offenders formally dealt with by police. Offenders who would not normally be sent to court for the offence detected, and who are treated by police in a less formal manner (for example, those issued with infringement notices), are not included. A high or increasing proportion of juvenile diversions as a proportion of juvenile offenders represents a desirable outcome. When police apprehend offenders, they have a variety of options available. They can charge the offender (and proceed to court) or they can use their discretion to divert the offender away from this potentially costly, time consuming and stressful situation (for both the offender and victim). They are particularly useful mechanisms for dealing with juvenile offenders. This indicator does not provide information on the relative success or failure of diversionary mechanisms. The term ‘diverted’ includes diversions of offenders away from the courts by way of community conference, diversionary conference, formal cautioning by police, family conferences, and other programs (for example, drug assessment/treatment). Not all options are available or subject to police discretion in all jurisdictions. Data reported for this measure are: not comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions because the process by which juvenile diversions are recorded differs across jurisdictions incomplete for the current reporting period. All required data were not available for NSW.

The majority of jurisdictions reported an increased proportion of juvenile offenders undergoing diversionary programs from 2014-15 to 2015-16 (table 6A.39).

Outcomes of investigations

‘Outcomes of investigations’ is an indicator of governments’ objective of supporting the judicial process to bring to justice those people responsible for committing an offence (box 6.12).

POLICE SERVICES 6.21

Box 6.12 Outcomes of investigations ‘Outcomes of investigations’ is defined by two measures: the proportion of investigations that were finalised within 30 days of the offence becoming known to police the proportion of investigations finalised within 30 days of the offence becoming known to police, where proceedings were instituted against the offender. Measures are reported for a range of offences. against the person, including homicide and armed robbery against property, including unlawful entry with intent, motor vehicle theft and other theft. A high or increasing proportion of investigations that were finalised within 30 days of the offence becoming known to police and of investigations finalised within 30 days of the offence becoming known to police, where proceedings were instituted against the offender, is desirable. Data reported for this measure are: not directly comparable across jurisdictions because of differences in the way data are compiled. Significant differences and changes in the business rules, procedures, systems, policies and recording practices of police agencies across Australia have resulted in discrepancies in data across states and territories for some offence types complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Figure 6.12a presents the proportion of investigations finalised within 30 days for a range of offences in 2015 (data on kidnapping/abduction and blackmail/extortion are in table 6A.31). Figure 6.12b reports the proportion of investigations and other theft investigations of crimes against property that were finalised within 30 days of the offence becoming known to police for 2015.

The proportion of these finalised investigations for which proceedings had commenced against an alleged offender is presented in tables 6A.31 (crimes against the person) and 6A.32 (crimes against property).

6.22 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure 6.12 Proportion of investigations finalised and for which

proceedings had begun within 30 days of the offence

becoming known to police 2015a, b

(a) Crimes against the person

(b) Crimes against property

a See box 6.12 and tables 6A.31–32 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. b Data are not

published for Tasmania, ACT and NT for homicide and related offences.

Source: Derived from ABS (2016b), Recorded Crime – Victims, 2015, Cat. no. 4510.0; tables 6A.31–32.

0

20

40

60

80

100

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

Per cent

Sexual assault Armed robbery Homicide and related offences

0

20

40

60

80

100

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

Per cent

Unlawful entry with intent Motor vehicle theft Other theft

POLICE SERVICES 6.23

Proportion of prosecutions where costs are awarded against police

‘Proportion of prosecutions where costs are awarded against police’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to undertake police activities associated with the judicial process efficiently (box 6.13).

Box 6.13 Proportion of prosecutions where costs are awarded against police ‘Proportion of prosecutions where costs are awarded against police’ is defined as the percentage of prosecutions with costs awarded against police, based on the number of files and the number of cost orders made. Court costs are generally awarded against police when a criminal action against an offender has failed; in this respect, it represents at least some of the resources expended when a prosecution fails. Results are influenced by differing jurisdictional legislative requirements and court practices. A low or decreasing proportion of prosecutions where costs are awarded against police is desirable. Data reported for this measure are: not comparable across jurisdictions because the process by which costs are awarded differs between jurisdictions incomplete for the current reporting period. All required data were not available for Victoria.

The proportion of prosecutions where costs were awarded against the police in 2015-16 was less than 2.0 per cent in all jurisdictions for which data are available (table 6A.41).

Efficiency

Dollars per person

‘Dollars per person’ is a proxy indicator of governments’ objective of providing police services in an efficient manner (box 6.14).

6.24 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Box 6.14 Dollars per person ‘Dollars per person’ is defined as recurrent expenditure on policing per person. All else being equal, a low or decreasing expenditure per person is desirable. However, efficiency data should be interpreted with care. High or increasing expenditure per person might reflect poor efficiency, but might also reflect changing aspects of the service or policing environment. Low expenditure per person may reflect more efficient outcomes or lower quality or less challenging crime and safety situations. The scope of activities undertaken by police services also varies across jurisdictions. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Recurrent expenditure (less revenue from own sources and payroll tax) on police services across Australia was $459 per person in 2015-16 (figure 6.13), with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent from 2008-09 (table 6A.10).

Time series data for real recurrent expenditure by each jurisdiction are reported in tables 6A.1-8 and 6A.10. Capital costs (including depreciation and the user cost of capital) for each jurisdiction are also contained in tables 6A.1–8, with associated information on treatment of assets by police agencies in table 6A.9.

Figure 6.13 Real recurrent expenditure per person (including user cost of capital less revenue from own sources and payroll tax) on police services (2015-16 dollars)a

a See box 6.14 and table 6A.10 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.10.

0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200 1 400NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAust$/person2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

POLICE SERVICES 6.25

Outcomes

Outcomes are the impact of services on the status of an individual or group (see chapter 1).

Crime victimisation

‘Crime victimisation’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to contribute to a safe and secure community that enables people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely (box 6.15).

Box 6.15 Crime victimisation ‘Crime victimisation’ is defined by six separate measures: estimated victimisation rate for physical and threatened assault per 100 000 people aged 15 years or over estimated victimisation rate for sexual assault per 100 000 people aged 18 years or over estimated victimisation rate for robbery per 100 000 people aged 15 years or over estimated household victims of break-ins per 100 000 households estimated household victims of attempted break-ins per 100 000 households estimated household victims of motor vehicle theft per 100 000 households. A low or decreasing rate of crime victimisation is a desirable outcome. Data reported for these measures are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2014-15 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally in 2014-15 there were an estimated 2137 victims of physical assaults, 2626 victims of threatened assaults, 328 victims of sexual assaults and 298 victims of robberies per 100 000 people (figure 6.14).

Nationally, an estimated 4737 households experienced a break-in or attempted break-in and an estimated 598 households experienced motor vehicle theft per 100 000 households in 2014-15 (figure 6.15). The number of recorded property crimes per 100 000 people is reported in table 6A.26. Data for all measures vary across jurisdictions and over time (tables 6A.27-28).

6.26 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure 6.14 Estimated victims of assault and sexual assault, 2014-15a, b

a See box 6.15 and table 6A.27 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. b Robbery data for the

ACT and the NT and Sexual assault data for SA, Tasmania, ACT and NT are not presented, as confidence

intervals are not available due to associated relative standard errors greater than 50 per cent.

Source: Derived from ABS (2016a) Crime Victimisation, Australia 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0; table 6A.27.

Figure 6.15 Estimated victims of property crime, 2014-15a, b

a See box 6.15 and table 6A.28 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. b Motor vehicle theft data

for the ACT are not presented, as confidence intervals were not available due to associated relative

standard errors greater than 50 per cent.

Source: Derived from ABS (2016a) Crime Victimisation, Australia 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0; table 6A.28.

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Victims/100 000 people

Physical assault Threatened assault Sexual assault Robbery

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Victims/100 000 households

Break-in Attempted break-in Motor vehicle theft

POLICE SERVICES 6.27

Perceptions of safety

‘Perceptions of safety’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to contribute to a safe and secure community that enables people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely (box 6.16).

Box 6.16 Perceptions of safety ‘Perceptions of safety’ is defined by two measures: the proportion of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ at home during the night the proportion of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ in public places, including ‘walking locally’ and travelling on public transport during the day and at night. A high or increasing proportion of people who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ is desirable. Perceptions of safety may not reflect reported crime, which might understate actual crime, and many factors might affect public perceptions of crime levels and safety. Perceptions of safety on public transport might be influenced by the availability and types of public transport in each jurisdiction. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally in 2015-16, 88.5 per cent of people felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ at home alone during the night (figure 6.16).

Figure 6.16 Perceptions of safety at home alone during the nighta

a See box 6.16 and table 6A.19 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); table 6A.19.

020406080100NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustPer cent2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

6.28 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Nationally in 2015-16, 91.0 per cent of people felt safe or very safe when walking locally

during the day (table 6A.20), and 51.7 per cent when walking locally during the night

(figure 6.17a). This proportion dropped to 56.5 per cent when travelling on public transport

during the day (table 6A.21), and dropped further to 24.3 per cent when travelling on public

transport during the night (figure 6.17b).

Figure 6.17 Perceptions of safety in public places during the nighta

(a) Proportion who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ walking locally

(b) Proportion who felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ travelling on public transport

a See box 6.16 and tables 6A.20–21 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); tables 6A.20–21.

0

20

40

60

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Per cent

2011-12 to 2014-15 2015-16

0

20

40

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Per cent

2011-12 to 2014-15 2015-16

POLICE SERVICES 6.29

Perceptions of crime problems

‘Perceptions of crime problems’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to contribute to a safe and secure community that enables people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely (box 6.17).

Box 6.17 Perceptions of crime problems ‘Perceptions of crime problems’ is measured by the proportion of people who thought that various types of crime were a ‘major problem’ or ‘somewhat of a problem’ in their neighbourhood. A low or decreasing proportion of people who thought the selected types of crime were a ‘major problem’ or ‘somewhat of a problem’ in their neighbourhood is desirable. Care needs to be taken in interpreting data on perceptions of crime, because reducing people’s concerns about crime and reducing the actual level of crime are two separate but related challenges. Comparisons between perceptions of crime problems and the level of crime raise questions about the factors that affect perceptions, and highlight the importance of considering the full suite of performance indicators rather than assessing performance on specific measures in isolation. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally in 2015-16, people identified the following issues as a ‘major problem’ or ‘somewhat of a problem’ in their neighbourhoods:

48.3 per cent of people thought illegal drugs to be a problem, higher than the previous four years (figure 6.18a)

69.7 per cent of people thought ‘speeding cars, dangerous or noisy driving’ to be a problem, higher than the previous three years but lower than in 2011-12 (figure 6.18b).

Time series data for perceptions of crime problems are reported in tables 6A.22−23.

6.30 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure 6.18 Proportion of people who consider the identified issues to be

either a ‘major problem’ or ‘somewhat of a problem’ in their

neighbourhooda

(a) Illegal drugs

(b) Speeding cars, dangerous or noisy driving

a See box 6.17 and tables 6A.22–23 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: ANZPAA (unpublished); tables 6A.22–23.

0

20

40

60

80

100

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Per cent

2011-12 to 2014-15 2015-16

0

20

40

60

80

100

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Per cent

2011-12 to 2014-15 2015-16

POLICE SERVICES 6.31

Traffic accident hospitalisations per registered vehicle

‘Traffic accident hospitalisations per registered vehicle’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to contribute to a safe and secure community that enables people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely (box 6.18).

Box 6.18 Traffic accident hospitalisations per registered vehicle ‘Traffic accident hospitalisations per registered vehicle’ is defined as the number of hospitalisations from traffic accidents per 100 000 registered vehicles. A low or decreasing number of hospitalisations from traffic accidents per 100 000 registered vehicles is desirable. Hospitalisations from traffic accidents are affected by a number of factors in addition to activities undertaken by police services, such as the condition of roads, driver education and media campaigns. Data reported for this measure are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2014-15 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Nationally, there were 234 traffic accident hospitalisations per 100 000 registered vehicles in 2014-15 (figure 6.19).

6.32 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

This page has been changed since an earlier version of the Report. See errata at http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2017/police-services Figure 6.19 Traffic accident hospitalisations per 100 000 registered

vehiclesa

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Hospitalisations/100 000 registered vehicles

2010-11 to 2013-14 2014-15

a See box 6.18 and table 6A.37 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: AIHW (various years) Australian Hospital Statistics (unpublished); ABS (2016c) Motor Vehicle Census (various years), Australia, Cat. no. 9309.0; table 6A.37.

Road deaths ‘Road deaths’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to contribute to a safe and secure community that enables people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely (box 6.19).

POLICE SERVICES 6.33

Nationally in 2015-16, there were 6.9 road deaths per 100 000 registered vehicles (figure 6.20).

Figure 6.20 Road deaths per 100 000 registered vehiclesa

a See box 6.19 and table 6A.36 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: Australian Road Fatality Statistics at www.bitre.gov.au/; ABS (2016c) Motor Vehicle Census (various years), Australia, Cat. no. 9309.0; table 6A.36.

6.4 Definitions of key terms

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff

Number of staff who are self identified as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.

Adjudicated defendant

A defendant is a person or organisation against whom one or more criminal charges have been laid and which are heard together as one unit of work by a court level. An adjudicated finalisation is a method of finalisation based on a judgment or decision by the court as to whether or not the defendant is guilty of the charge(s) laid against them.

Armed robbery

Robbery conducted with the use (actual or implied) of a weapon, where a weapon can include, but is not restricted to:

firearms — pistol, revolver, rifle, automatic/semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, military firearm, airgun, nail gun, cannon, imitation firearm and implied firearm

other weapons — knife, sharp instrument, blunt instrument, hammer, axe, club, iron bar, piece of wood, syringe/hypodermic needle, bow and arrow, crossbow, spear gun, blowgun, rope, wire, chemical, acid, explosive, vehicle, bottle/glass, other dangerous article and imitation weapons.

Assault

The direct (and immediate/confrontational) infliction of force, injury or violence on a person(s) or the direct (and immediate/confrontational) threat of force, injury or violence where there is an apprehension that the threat could be enacted.

Available full time

Any full time equivalent category where the individual is on duty performing a

010203040NSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAustDeaths/100 000 registered vehicles2011-12 to 2014-152015-16

6.34 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

equivalent staff

function. To be measured using average staffing level for the whole reporting period.

Blackmail and extortion

Unlawful demanding with intent to gain money, property or any other benefit from, or with intent to cause detriment to, another person, accompanied by the use of coercive measures, to be carried out at some point in the future if the demand is not met. This may also include the use and/or threatened use of face-to-face force or violence, provided there is a threat of continued violence if the demand is not met.

Cautioning

A formal method of dealing with young offenders without taking court proceedings. Police officers may caution young offenders instead of charging them if the offence or the circumstance of the offence is not serious.

Civilian staff

Unsworn staff, including specialists (civilian training and teaching medical and other specialists) and civilian administrative and management staff.

Complaints

Number of statements of complaint by members of the public regarding police conduct.

Depreciation

Where possible, based on current asset valuation.

Full time equivalent (FTE)

The equivalent number of full time staff required to provide the same hours of work as performed by staff actually employed. A full time staff member is equivalent to a full time equivalent of one, while a part time staff member is greater than zero but less than one.

Higher court defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding

Total number of higher courts finalised defendants resulting in a guilty plea or finding, as a proportion of the total number of higher courts finalised defendants. A defendant can be either a person or organisation against whom one or more criminal charges have been laid.

A higher court is either:

an intermediate court (known either as the district court or county court) that has legal powers between those of a court of summary jurisdiction (lower level courts) and a supreme court, and that deals with the majority of cases involving serious criminal charges

a supreme court (a higher court level which deals with the most serious criminal charges and has the greatest legal powers of all the State and Territory court levels).

Guilty finding is an outcome of a trial in which a court determines that the criminal charge against a defendant has been proven.

Juvenile diversion

Juvenile offenders who are diverted by police (for example, through the use of cautions, official warnings or other diversionary programs) away from the criminal justice system.

Traffic accident hospitalisations

Hospitalisations due to traffic accidents that are likely to have required police attendance.

Lower court defendants resulting in guilty plea or finding

Total number of cases (excluding committal hearings) heard before lower courts of law only, for which there was a plea of guilty, as a proportion of the total number of cases (excluding committal hearings) heard before lower courts of law only.

A lower court is a court of summary jurisdiction (commonly referred to as magistrates’ court, local court or court of petty sessions) that deals with relatively less serious charges and has the most limited legal powers of all State and Territory court levels. Such courts are presided over by a magistrate and have jurisdiction to hear trial and sentence matters relating to summary offences. Under some circumstances, this court level may also deal with the less serious indictable offences known as ‘minor indictable’ or ‘triable either way’ offences.

A guilty plea is the formal statement by a defendant admitting culpability in relation to a criminal charge. A not guilty plea is the formal statement by a defendant denying culpability in relation to a charge. For this data collection, a plea of ‘not guilty’ should also include ‘no plea’, ‘plea reserved’ and ‘other defended plea’.

Further, these definitions:

exclude preliminary (committal) hearings for indictable offences dealt with by a lower court

count cases that involve multiple charges as a ‘lower court case resulting in

POLICE SERVICES 6.35

a plea of guilty’ if a plea of guilty has resulted for at least one of those charges.

Motor vehicle theft

The taking of another person’s motor vehicle illegally and without permission.

Murder

The wilful killing of a person either intentionally or with reckless indifference to life.

Non- Indigenous full time equivalent staff

Number of full time equivalent staff who do not satisfy the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff criteria.

Non-operational full time equivalent staff

Any person who does not satisfy the operational staff criteria, including functional support staff only. Functional support full time equivalent staff include any person (sworn or unsworn) not satisfying the operational or operational support staff criteria (for example, finance, policy, research, personnel services, building and property services, transport services, and management above the level of station and shift supervisors).

Offender

In this chapter, the term ‘offender’ refers to a person who is alleged to have committed an offence.

Operational staff

An operational police staff member (sworn or unsworn) is any member of the police force whose primarily duty is the delivery of police or police related services to an external customer (where an external customer predominately refers to members of the public but may also include law enforcement outputs delivered to other government departments).

Operational staff include: general duties officers, investigators, traffic operatives, tactical officers, station counter staff, communication officers, crime scene staff, disaster victim identification, and prosecution and judicial support officers.

Other recurrent expenditure

Maintenance and working expenses; expenditure incurred by other departments on behalf of police; expenditure on contracted police services; and other recurrent costs not elsewhere classified. Expenditure is disaggregated by service delivery area.

Other theft

The taking of another person’s property with the intention of depriving the owner of the property illegally and without permission, but without force, threat of force, use of coercive measures, deceit or having gained unlawful entry to any structure, even if the intent was to commit theft.

Outcome of investigations

The stage reached by a police investigation after a period of 30 days has elapsed since the recording of the incident.

Property crimes

Total recorded crimes against property, including:

unlawful entry with intent

motor vehicle theft

other theft.

Real expenditure

Actual expenditure is adjusted for changes in prices. Time series financial data are adjusted to 2015-16 dollars using the General Government Final Consumption Expenditure (GGFCE) chain price deflator (2015-16 = 100. See table 2A.48 and chapter 2 for more details.

Recorded crime

Crimes reported to (or detected) and recorded by police.

Registered vehicles

Total registered motor vehicles, including motorcycles.

Reporting rate

The proportion of crime victims who told police about the last crime incident of which they were the victim, as measured by a crime victimisation survey.

Revenue from own sources

Revenue from activities undertaken by police, including revenue from the sale of stores, plant and vehicles; donations and industry contributions; user charges; and other revenue (excluding fine revenue and revenue from the issuing of firearm licenses).

Road deaths

Fatal road injury accidents as defined by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Robbery

The unlawful taking of property from the immediate possession, control, custody or care of a person, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property accompanied by the use, and/or threatened use of immediate force or violence.

Salaries and payments in

Includes:

6.36 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

the nature of salary

base salary package

motor vehicle expenses that are part of employer fringe benefits

superannuation, early retirement schemes and payments to pension schemes (employer contributions)

workers compensation (full cost) including premiums, levies, bills, legal fees

higher duty allowances (actual amounts paid)

overtime (actual amounts paid)

actual termination and long service leave

actual annual leave

actual sick leave

actual maternity/paternity leave

fringe benefits tax paid

fringe benefits provided (for example, school fee salary sacrifice at cost to the government, car parking, duress alarms, telephone account reimbursements, ‘gold passes’, other salary sacrifice benefits, frequent flyer benefits, overtime meals provided and any other components that are not part of a salary package)

payroll tax.

Sexual assault

Physical contact of a sexual nature directed towards another person where that person does not give consent, that person gives consent as a result of intimidation or fraud, or consent is proscribed (that is, the person is legally deemed incapable of giving consent as a result of youth, temporary/permanent (mental) incapacity or a familial relationship).

Includes rape, attempted rape, indecent assault and assault with intent to commit sexual assault. Excludes sexual harassment not leading to assault.

Supervisory full time equivalent staff

Number of supervisory full time equivalent staff, including civilian (team leaders) and sworn (sergeant to senior sergeant) staff.

Sworn staff

Sworn police staff recognised under each jurisdiction’s Police Act.

Total capital expenditure

Total expenditure on the purchase of new or second hand capital assets, and expenditure on significant repairs or additions to assets that add to the assets’ service potential or service life.

Total expenditure

Total capital expenditure plus total recurrent expenditure (less revenue from own sources).

Total FTE staff

Operational staff and non-operational staff, including full time equivalent staff on paid leave or absence from duty (including secondment and training), as measured using absolute numbers for the whole reporting period.

Total number of staff

Full time equivalent staff directly employed on an annual basis (excluding labour contracted out).

Total recurrent expenditure

Includes:

salaries and payments in the nature of salary

other recurrent expenditure

depreciation

less revenue from own sources.

Unarmed robbery

Robbery conducted without the use (actual or implied) of a weapon

Unavailable full time equivalent staff

Any full time equivalent category where the individual is on paid leave or absent from duty (including secondment and training), as measured using the average staffing level for the whole reporting period.

Unlawful entry with intent — involving the taking of property

The unlawful entry of a structure (whether forced or unforced) with intent to commit an offence, resulting in the taking of property from the structure. Includes burglary and break-in offences. Excludes trespass or lawful entry with intent.

Unlawful entry with intent — other

The unlawful entry of a structure (whether forced or unforced) with intent to commit an offence, but which does not result in the taking of property from the structure. Excludes trespass or lawful entry with intent.

User cost of capital

The opportunity cost of funds tied up in the capital used to deliver services. Calculated as 8 per cent of the current value of non-current physical assets (excluding land).

POLICE SERVICES 6.37

Value of physical assets — buildings and fittings

The value of buildings and fittings under the direct control of police.

Value of physical assets — land

The value of land under the direct control of police.

Value of physical assets — other

The value of motor vehicles, computer equipment, and general plant and equipment under the direct control of police.

6.5 References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2016a, Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0, Canberra.

—— 2016b, Recorded Crime Victims, Australia, 2015, Cat. no. 4510.0, Canberra.

—— 2016c, Motor Vehicle Census, Australia, 2015, Cat. no. 9309.0, Canberra.

—— 2016d, Criminal Courts, Australia, 2014-15, Cat no. 4513.0, Canberra.

NSW Police 2016, Annual Report 2015-16.

Queensland Police Service (QPS) 2016, Annual report 2015-16.

WA Police 2016, Annual Report 2015-16.

SA Police 2016, Annual Report 2015-16.

ACT Policing 2016, Annual report 2015-16.

6A

Police services — attachment

Definitionsfortheindicatorsanddescriptorsinthisattachmentareinsection6.4ofthechapter.DatainthisReportareexaminedbythePoliceServicesWorkingGroup,buthavenotbeenformallyauditedbytheSecretariat.ApeerreviewprocessisalsoundertakenbythePolicePractitioners'Groupinthedevelopmentofthedatadefinitions.Unsourcedinformationwas obtained from the Australian, State and Territory governments.

This file is available in Adobe PDF format on the web page (www.pc.gov.au/rogs/2017).

Data reported in the attachment tables are the most accurate available at the time of data collection. Historical data may have been updated since the last edition of RoGS.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

CONTENTS

Attachment contents

Table 6A.1

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NSW

Table 6A.2

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Victoria

Table 6A.3

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Queensland

Table 6A.4

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, WA

Table 6A.5

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, SA

Table 6A.6

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Tasmania

Table 6A.7

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, ACT

Table 6A.8

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NT

Table 6A.9

Treatment of assets by police agencies, 2015-16

Table 6A.10

Realrecurrentexpenditure(includingusercostofcapital,lessrevenuefromownsourcesand payroll tax) on police services (2015-16 dollars)

Table 6A.11

Police staff, by operational status (per cent)

Table 6A.12

General satisfaction with services provided by the police

Table 6A.13

Opinions on statement 'police perform job professionally'

Table 6A.14

Opinions on statement 'police treat people fairly and equally'

Table 6A.15

Opinions on statement 'police are honest'

Table 6A.16

Trends in complaints

Table 6A.17

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, sworn and unsworn police staff

Table 6A.18

Police staff, sworn and unsworn, by gender (per cent)

Table 6A.19

Feelings of safety at home alone during the night

Table 6A.20

Feelings of safety walking alone in your neighbourhood

Table 6A.21

Feelings of safety on public transport

Table 6A.22

Opinion on whether illegal drugs are a problem in the neighbourhood

Table 6A.23

Opiniononwhetherspeedingcars,dangerousornoisydrivingareproblemsintheneighbourhood

Table 6A.24

Satisfaction of those who had contact with police in the previous 12 months

Table 6A.25

Victims of recorded crime — selected crimes against people (per 100 000 people)

Table 6A.26

Victims of recorded crime — selected property crimes (per 100 000 people)

Table 6A.27

Estimatedvictimsofselectedpersonalcrimes,reportedandunreported(no.in'000andno.per 100 000),

Table 6A.28

Estimatedvictimsofselectedpropertycrimes,reportedandunreported(no.in'000andno.per 100 000 households)

Table 6A.29

Reportingratesofselectedpersonalcrimesexperiencedandreportedtopolice(proportionreported)

Table 6A.30

Reportingratesofselectedhouseholdcrimesexperiencedandreportedtopolice(proportion reported)

Table 6A.31

Outcomesofinvestigationsofcrimesagainsttheperson:30daystatus,1Januaryto31December 2015

Table 6A.32

Outcomesofinvestigationsofcrimesagainstproperty:30daystatus,1Januaryto31December 2015 REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Attachment contents

Table 6A.33

People who had driven in the previous 6 months without wearing a seat belt

Table 6A.34

People who had driven in the previous 6 months when possibly over the alcohol limit

Table 6A.35

Peoplewhohaddrivenintheprevious6monthsmorethan10kilometresabovethespeedlimit

Table 6A.36

Road deaths

Table 6A.37

Traffic accident hospitalisations

Table 6A.38

Number of deaths in police custody and custody-related operations, 2007-08 to 2014-15

Table 6A.39

Juvenile diversions as a proportion of offenders (per cent)

Table 6A.40

Courts adjudicated defendants who submitted a guilty plea or were found guilty

Table 6A.41

Prosecutions where costs were awarded against the police

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of CONTENTS

TABLE 6A.1

Table 6A.1

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries (a)

Salaries and related payments

$m

1 729.6

1 863.3

2 086.2

2 195.6

2 120.8

2 373.3

2 379.6

2 529.1

Superannuation

$m

186.2

190.7

208.2

264.7

285.7

326.4

353.3

350.5

Payroll tax

$m

99.7

102.8

102.4

114.2

108.7

120.4

125.0

133.1

Total salaries and payments

$m

2 015.5

2 156.8

2 396.7

2 574.4

2 515.2

2 820.0

2 857.8

3 012.7

Other recurrent expenditure

$m

421.7

434.9

427.8

463.3

482.0

477.7

497.5

489.5

Depreciation

$m

106.6

115.2

132.8

125.6

136.5

139.9

134.8

132.0

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

2 543.9

2 707.0

2 957.3

3 163.3

3 133.7

3 437.7

3 490.2

3 634.2

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS) (b)

$m

91.3

69.4

89.4

90.0

101.9

110.3

106.8

143.1

$m

2 352.9

2 534.7

2 765.5

2 959.1

2 923.0

3 207.0

3 258.4

3 358.1

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (c)

$m

90.5

92.9

92.6

98.8

104.4

102.8

101.0

102.8

Capital expenditure (d)

$m

120.0

130.4

153.7

135.7

137.3

124.0

144.6

169.4

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (e)

$m

2 557.2

2 722.1

2 978.2

3 173.3

3 134.5

3 421.7

3 500.0

3 671.7

Total accrual costs (f)

$m

2 634.3

2 799.9

3 050.0

3 262.1

3 238.1

3 540.5

3 591.2

3 737.0

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

109 379

119 129

131 235

138 771

132 969

148 551

149 047

157 886

Average non-police staff costs

$

88 244

91 526

95 353

109 425

104 030

116 953

114 677

119 980

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NSW

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.1

TABLE 6A.1

Table 6A.1

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NSW

Operational FTE staff

Sworn (g)

FTE

14 587

14 917

15 179

15 230

15 456

15 554

15 707

15 697

Civilian (h)

FTE

1 927

1 731

1 685

1 627

1 647

1 780

1 818

1 800

Other

FTE

163

154

169

172

169

na

na

na

Operational FTE staff

FTE

16 677

16 802

17 033

17 029

17 272

17 334

17 525

17 497

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

807

370

418

412

569

556

608

557

Civilian

FTE

1 639

1 751

1 787

1 866

1 854

1 870

1 898

1 921

Other

FTE

30

32

28

25

25

na

na

na

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

2 476

2 153

2 233

2 303

2 448

2 426

2 506

2 478

Total staff

FTE

19 153

18 955

19 266

19 332

19 720

19 760

20 031

19 975

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff (i)

Operational

FTE

230

271

328

332

287

322

344

356

Non-operational

FTE

78

50

125

123

134

144

151

160

FTE

308

321

453

455

421

466

495

516

Assets by value

Land

$'000

403 692

442 873

440 886

401 296

407 927

412 116

439 595

450 130

Buildings and fittings

$'000

601 279

627 697

629 166

707 346

754 480

760 243

781 140

814 124

Other

$'000

529 511

534 112

528 949

527 038

550 426

525 066

481 868

470 356

Total value of assets

$'000

1 534 482

1 604 682

1 599 001

1 635 680

1 712 833

1 697 425

1 702 603

1 734 610

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

ThisamountisnowincludedaspartoftotalrevenueintheAuditedFinancialStatements(appropriation),howeverdisclosureisconsistentwithprioryearRoGS.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation, and the user cost of capital.

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries include long service leave, workers' compensation insurance and fringe benefits tax.

User cost of capital is calculated at an opportunity cost of 8 per cent per annum on total value of assets (excluding land).

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, and capital expenditure.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

This will differ from Audited Financial Statements Revenue includes recurrent grant (appropriation) however disclosure is consistent with prior year RoGS.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.1

TABLE 6A.1

Table 6A.1

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NSW

(g)

(h)

(i)

Source:

NSW Government (unpublished).

na Not available.

Totalof206Ministerials(categorisedasother)werereclassifiedtoAdmin(civilian)on21May2014asperProclamationofthePoliceActforconversionof Ministerial employees under Administration Officers.

Figures sourced from WRS Aboriginal Employment Program.

Total increase in Authorised Strength of 130 in 2013-14.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.1

TABLE 6A.2

Table 6A.2

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments

$m

1 040.7

1 117.1

1 150.2

1 281.0

1 334.2

1 437.6

1 574.5

1 691.8

Superannuation

$m

120.2

122.3

138.1

142.7

153.1

164.4

178.7

191.7

Payroll tax

$m

52.9

57.2

63.9

62.6

69.9

74.9

80.4

86.2

Total salaries and payments

$m

1 213.7

1 296.6

1 352.1

1 486.2

1 557.2

1 676.9

1 833.7

1 969.6

Other recurrent expenditure

$m

442.5

489.0

529.1

519.5

497.2

539.0

554.8

550.8

Depreciation

$m

52.9

56.8

62.1

67.0

71.2

76.5

76.8

88.8

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

1 709.1

1 842.5

1 943.4

2 072.7

2 125.6

2 292.3

2 465.2

2 609.2

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS)

$m

11.4

13.8

13.9

15.2

17.1

20.9

22.0

21.6

$m

1 644.9

1 771.4

1 865.6

1 994.9

2 038.6

2 196.6

2 362.8

2 501.5

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (a)

$m

53.1

58.0

74.0

72.5

72.9

79.6

86.7

96.8

Capital expenditure

$m

86.7

120.8

98.6

84.7

75.4

159.6

173.0

101.7

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (b)

$m

1 742.9

1 906.5

1 979.8

2 090.5

2 129.8

2 375.4

2 561.5

2 622.2

Total accrual costs (c)

$m

1 762.2

1 900.4

2 017.4

2 145.2

2 198.5

2 371.9

2 551.9

2 706.0

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

94 309

98 260

97 103

102 330

107 427

112 879

121 950

129 057

Average non-police staff costs

$

60 454

60 568

62 196

66 508

65 196

53 599

56 752

54 566

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Victoria

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.2

TABLE 6A.2

Table 6A.2

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Victoria

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

10 547

10 968

11 752

12 324

12 506

12 901

13 057

13 207

Civilian (d)

FTE

386

1 825

2 139

1 791

1 837

1 879

1 957

2 271

Other

FTE

141

152

153

295

538

944

1 168

1 321

Operational FTE staff

FTE

11 074

12 945

14 044

14 410

14 881

15 724

16 182

16 798

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

481

325

145

154

34

55

95

105

Civilian

FTE

2 175

857

602

937

685

764

794

828

Other

FTE

171

253

272

125

162

413

130

193

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

2 827

1 435

1 019

1 216

881

1 232

1 019

1 126

Total staff

FTE

13 901

14 380

15 063

15 626

15 762

16 956

17 201

17 924

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff (e)

Operational

FTE

na

34

50

44

43

42

47

59

Non-operational

FTE

na

1

1

3

1

3

6

10

FTE

na

na

51

47

44

45

53

69

Assets by value (f)

Land

$'000

225 476

225 823

373 338

366 744

374 094

376 754

374 574

391 315

Buildings and fittings

$'000

551 617

602 997

802 766

783 837

788 037

856 955

932 032

1 047 667

Other

$'000

112 268

121 651

122 143

121 831

123 180

138 044

152 091

162 041

Total value of assets

$'000

889 361

950 471

1 298 247

1 272 412

1 285 311

1 371 753

1 458 697

1 601 023

(a)

User cost of capital is calculated at an opportunity cost of 8 per cent per annum on total value of assets (excluding land).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.2

TABLE 6A.2

Table 6A.2

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Victoria

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Source:

Victorian Government (unpublished).

na Not available.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation, and the user cost of capital.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, and capital expenditure.

Acomprehensivereviewofcivilianpositiondescriptions,relativetothedefinitionofoperationalstaffcontainedinthePoliceServicesWorkingGroupDataManual,hasledtothereclassificationofasignificantnumberofthosepositionsasoperationalasdistinctfromnon-operationalin2009-10data.Dataforpreviousyearshavenotbeenrevised.Organisationalrestructureshaveresultedinciviliansupportdutiesbeingmorecloselyalignedwithswornoperationalareas and an increase in the relative number of operational civilians.

TheintroductionofanewhumanresourcessystemhassupportedinitialcaptureofdatarelatingtoAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderstatus.Thedataareindicativeonly(providedonavoluntarybasis).AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderandnon-AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderstaffwereunabletobeseparated in Victoria prior to 2009-10.

Land and buildings revalued in 2010-11.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.2

TABLE 6A.3

Table 6A.3

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure (a)

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments (b)

$m

1 003.5

1 094.2

1 179.0

1 261.3

1 298.7

1 341.1

1 484.7

1 424.7

Superannuation (b)

$m

127.6

141.2

149.6

158.1

165.1

172.2

188.7

187.6

Payroll tax (c)

$m

53.0

56.9

61.3

64.0

67.1

69.1

Total salaries and payments

$m

1 184.1

1 292.3

1 389.9

1 483.4

1 530.9

1 582.4

1 673.4

1 612.3

Other recurrent expenditure (d) (e)

$m

274.5

312.0

309.0

342.3

328.8

330.4

255.0

405.2

Depreciation (b), (f)

$m

68.3

67.8

86.3

89.9

95.5

97.3

78.8

78.2

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

1 526.9

1 672.1

1 785.1

1 915.7

1 955.2

2 010.2

2 007.2

2 095.8

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS) (d)

$m

72.5

73.3

79.0

91.8

85.4

85.9

48.5

46.4

$m

1 401.3

1 541.9

1 644.9

1 759.9

1 802.8

1 855.3

1 958.7

2 049.3

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (g)

$m

104.3

104.9

108.0

110.6

109.0

103.8

100.1

92.2

Capital expenditure (b)

$m

224.9

149.8

149.6

139.7

99.5

74.6

78.3

108.6

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (h)

$m

1 683.5

1 754.1

1 848.4

1 965.4

1 959.3

1 987.4

2 006.7

2 126.1

Total accrual costs (i)

$m

1 631.2

1 777.0

1 893.1

2 026.3

2 064.3

2 114.0

2 107.3

2 188.0

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

93 948

100 570

106 787

111 419

113 151

114 572

128 677

122 331

Average non-police staff costs (j)

$

56 849

62 527

64 522

75 111

77 605

75 868

72 605

66 013

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

9 450

9 808

9 899

9 989

10 421

10 978

11 013

11 305

Civilian (k),(l)

FTE

1 592

2 954

2 995

2 782

2 632

2 561

2 050

2 095

Other

FTE

501

325

326

335

307

324

286

295

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Queensland

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.3

TABLE 6A.3

Table 6A.3

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Queensland

Operational FTE staff

FTE

11 543

13 087

13 220

13 106

13 360

13 863

13 349

13 695

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

674

485

486

514

444

444

398

412

Civilian (l)

FTE

1 427

466

555

526

456

454

121

155

Other

FTE

578

368

478

526

490

270

368

166

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

2 679

1 319

1 519

1 566

1 390

1 168

887

733

Total staff

FTE

14 222

14 406

14 739

14 672

14 750

15 031

14 236

14 428

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Operational

FTE

301

316

311

298

325

339

321

332

Non-operational

FTE

20

22

21

20

22

13

7

4

FTE

321

338

332

318

347

352

328

336

Assets by value (n)

Land

$'000

532 321

508 884

471 643

474 206

466 487

446 989

435 076

500 778

Buildings and fittings

$'000

952 335

981 641

978 477

1 028 423

986 754

977 950

939 809

976 278

Other

$'000

351 094

329 268

371 039

354 468

376 352

319 541

310 956

176 254

Total value of assets

$'000

1 835 750

1 819 793

1 821 159

1 857 097

1 829 593

1 744 480

1 685 841

1 653 310

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

User cost of capital is calculated at an opportunity cost of 8 per cent per annum on total value of assets (excluding land).

Depreciationiscalculatedonastraight-linebasissoastoallocatethenetcostorrevaluedamountofeachdepreciableasset,lessitsestimatedresidualvalue,progressively over its estimated useful life to the department.

Salaries,payrolltax,otherrecurrentexpenditure,revenuefromownsources,capitalexpenditure,valueoflandandotherassets,anddepreciationfor2008-09wasadjustedinthe2011RoGS.Datarevisionwasrequiredmainlyduetoauditrequirementsandupdatedmajorprojectexpenses,changedtreatmentofnonreciprocal grants and prepayment of government appropriations, and changes in salary recoveries.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff (m)

From 2014-15 Queensland Government Departments are exempt from payroll tax.

The 2014-15 results are not entirely comparable to prior years. Refer to footnote (d) and (n).

Excludes expenditure on hosting the G20 summit during 2014-15.

Duetomachinery-of-governmentchangeseffective1July2014,andasperthePublicSafetyBusinessAgency(PSBA)CostofServicemodel,thisamountrecognisesanestimatedvalueofservicesexpenditure[noncash]providedbyPSBAtotheQueenslandPoliceService(QpS).Thiswillvaryfromyeartoyeardueto assumptions and estimates used in the Cost of Service model.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, and capital expenditure.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.3

TABLE 6A.3

Table 6A.3

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Queensland

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

(m)

(n)

Source:

Queensland Government (unpublished).

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Asaresultofmachinery-of-governmentchangeseffective1July2014,functionsoftheQPSresponsibleforprovidingcorporateandbusinessservices,andeducation and training services transferred to the PSBA. This included net assets of $1.7 billion being transferred to PSBA.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff numbers relate to those staff who self identify as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.

Thedecreaseincivilianstaffin2014-15wasduetothemachinery-of-government(MoG)changeseffective1July2014.DuringtheMoGchanges,thebusinessmodelchanged,withfunctionsoftheQPSresponsibleforprovidingcorporateandbusinessservices,andeducationandtrainingservicesbeingtransferredtothePSBA.Thisincluded949.2FTEofpolicecivilianstaffbeingtransferredtoPSBA.Thedecreaseincivilianstafffrom2011-12to2013-14wasaresultofStateGovernment initiatives to reduce the size of the Queensland Public Sector.

Acomprehensivereviewofcivilianpositiondescriptions,relativetothedefinitionofoperationalstaffcontainedinthePoliceServicesWorkingGroupDataManual, led to the reclassification of a significant number of positions as operational in 2009-10 data. Data for previous years were not revised.

Theaveragenon-policestaffcostsarecalculatedastheTotalNon-PoliceStaffExpenditureovertheTotalNon-PoliceFTEnumbersforthatyear.Theincreasein the average non-police staff costs in 2011-12 is a result of severance payments and 2011-12 non-police FTE numbers being less than in 2010-11.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation, and the user cost of capital.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.3

TABLE 6A.4

Table 6A.4

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments

$m

626.5

661.9

721.2

793.2

792.9

860.4

876.9

909.3

Superannuation

$m

54.3

60.8

60.7

69.4

72.0

76.3

79.6

87.3

Payroll tax (a)

$m

34.6

40.1

43.2

43.8

43.6

47.4

48.2

51.1

Total salaries and payments

$m

715.4

762.8

825.1

906.4

908.5

984.0

1 004.6

1 047.7

Other recurrent expenditure (b)

$m

201.9

216.3

256.8

269.8

258.8

258.3

267.0

288.6

Depreciation (c)

$m

40.9

40.0

40.4

42.1

45.2

51.1

50.3

53.2

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

958.2

1 019.0

1 122.3

1 218.2

1 212.5

1 293.5

1 322.0

1 389.5

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS)

$m

25.7

30.9

37.3

39.7

41.8

38.8

40.6

43.8

$m

898.0

948.1

1 041.8

1 134.8

1 127.1

1 207.3

1 233.2

1 294.5

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (d)

$m

45.6

46.2

50.7

55.4

56.5

57.6

60.5

63.3

Capital expenditure

$m

66.9

76.8

67.2

123.8

79.7

49.9

68.2

91.1

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (e)

$m

984.2

1 055.9

1 149.1

1 299.9

1 247.0

1 292.2

1 339.9

1 427.4

Total accrual costs (f)

$m

1 003.8

1 065.2

1 173.0

1 273.6

1 269.0

1 351.1

1 382.5

1 452.8

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs (g)

$

105 901

113 558

119 389

132 150

130 138

142 300

140 330

141 275

Average non-police staff costs (h)

$

66 908

74 154

75 102

78 039

79 156

79 903

83 212

82 443

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, WA

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.4

TABLE 6A.4

Table 6A.4

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, WA

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

5 176

5 118

5 157

5 290

5 319

5 349

5 597

5 816

Civilian

FTE

1 034

1 097

1 131

1 190

1 208

1 186

998

983

Other

FTE

114

167

206

274

263

360

400

384

Operational FTE staff

FTE

6 324

6 382

6 494

6 754

6 790

6 895

6 995

7 183

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

346

353

505

344

407

368

330

360

Civilian

FTE

767

608

594

560

550

555

651

728

Other

FTE

37

36

55

50

42

33

29

30

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

1 150

997

1 154

954

999

956

1 010

1 118

Total staff

FTE

7 474

7 379

7 648

7 708

7 789

7 851

8 005

8 301

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Operational

FTE

124

136

125

110

112

112

103

108

Non-operational

FTE

12

13

8

8

11

8

6

12

FTE

136

149

133

118

123

120

109

120

Assets by value

Land

$'000

174 418

151 831

179 627

200 216

243 279

254 624

256 447

235 992

Buildings and fittings

$'000

404 272

405 922

452 627

440 491

499 820

521 548

537 088

540 984

Other

$'000

165 267

171 305

181 312

252 153

205 883

198 199

219 132

250 535

Total value of assets

$'000

743 957

729 058

813 566

892 860

948 982

974 371

1 012 667

1 027 511

(a)

(b)

(c)

WA does not pay payroll tax, however the 'notional' payroll tax rate for WA has been estimated based on 5.5 per cent of payroll costs.

Depreciation based on the straight-line method of calculation. Data for 2007-08 include $3.1 million in impairment expense.

Includes training costs (previously reported under salaries).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff (i)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.4

TABLE 6A.4

Table 6A.4

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, WA

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

Employees Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status is provided on a voluntary basis.

Source:

WA Government (unpublished).

Calculated by dividing non-police staff expenditure by non-police staff numbers.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation, and the user cost of capital.

User cost of capital is calculated at an opportunity cost of 8 per cent per annum on total value of assets (excluding land).

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, and capital expenditure.

Calculated by dividing sworn police staff expenditure by sworn police numbers.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.4

TABLE 6A.5

Table 6A.5

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments (a)

$m

436.7

444.4

475.4

512.1

508.2

541.0

559.3

573.3

Superannuation

$m

55.6

54.4

58.0

61.3

63.6

64.5

67.1

65.2

Payroll tax

$m

23.2

24.0

25.8

26.8

28.3

28.9

30.7

31.3

Total salaries and payments (b)

$m

515.5

522.9

559.2

600.3

600.0

634.4

657.1

669.8

Other recurrent expenditure (c)

$m

110.3

119.7

124.4

133.8

132.6

130.0

129.9

136.6

Depreciation

$m

17.2

17.3

15.6

20.6

22.1

23.5

25.9

25.5

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

643.0

659.8

699.2

754.6

754.7

787.9

812.9

831.9

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS)

$m

61.6

70.5

62.3

78.0

82.9

86.2

87.1

89.5

$m

558.1

565.3

611.1

649.8

643.5

672.7

695.1

711.1

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital

$m

13.3

12.7

15.6

22.7

23.4

23.8

22.8

22.7

Capital expenditure (d)

$m

17.3

36.7

60.0

27.9

23.4

15.7

14.4

17.6

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure

$m

643.2

679.3

743.6

761.9

756.1

780.1

801.4

823.9

Total accrual costs

$m

656.3

672.5

714.7

777.4

778.1

811.7

835.7

854.6

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

107 338

103 277

111 787

116 901

116 369

123 980

129 537

132 082

Average non-police staff costs

$

52 160

59 549

59 747

64 878

70 794

67 403

66 493

67 875

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, SA

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.5

TABLE 6A.5

Table 6A.5

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, SA

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

4 083

4 265

4 313

4 428

4 428

4 428

4 401

4 362

Civilian

FTE

774

813

805

803

802

817

849

834

Other

FTE

28

27

25

25

23

27

24

23

Operational FTE staff

FTE

4 885

5 105

5 143

5 256

5 253

5 272

5 274

5 219

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

126

114

76

78

64

68

50

75

Civilian

FTE

272

233

222

229

218

218

225

222

Other

FTE

148

113

95

76

49

80

113

155

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

546

460

393

383

331

366

388

452

Total staff

FTE

5 431

5 565

5 536

5 639

5 584

5 638

5 662

5 671

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Operational

FTE

56

53

52

55

50

62

64

60

Non-operational

FTE

2

1

1

1

1

1

FTE

58

54

53

55

50

63

65

61

Assets by value

Land

$'000

55 143

55 700

66 367

66 797

66 668

70 672

69 473

72 394

Buildings and fittings (e)

$'000

133 304

127 260

157 834

245 427

255 132

257 493

247 388

245 318

Other

$'000

32 849

30 896

36 609

38 641

37 465

40 497

37 627

38 768

Total value of assets

$'000

221 296

213 856

260 810

350 865

359 265

368 662

354 488

356 480

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Source:

SA Government (unpublished).

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Higher expenditure relates to the timing of major projects.

Includes police service leave (effective 1 July 2014) and a decrease in workers compensation liability.

Includes Police Enterprise Agreement and net movement from employee liabilities based on actuarial assessment.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Decrease in 2015-16 mainly reflects depreciation partly offset by revaluation.

In 2015-16, includes higher minor equipment and once off Intra-Government transfer for helicopter project.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.5

TABLE 6A.6

Table 6A.6

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments (a)

$m

122.5

128.1

138.5

138.3

137.1

134.6

137.6

143.4

Superannuation

$m

12.9

13.6

16.1

16.3

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

Payroll tax (b)

$m

8.1

8.5

9.1

6.5

2.2

Total salaries and payments

$m

143.5

150.2

163.7

161.1

155.3

151.1

154.6

160.9

Other recurrent expenditure

$m

38.5

46.6

48.4

50.3

45.7

49.2

48.7

52.1

Depreciation

$m

4.5

5.2

6.6

7.3

7.1

10.0

10.2

9.3

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

186.6

202.1

218.8

218.7

208.1

210.3

213.5

222.3

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS)

$m

8.4

14.0

20.2

28.6

26.3

18.5

20.2

19.9

$m

170.0

179.6

189.5

183.6

179.5

191.8

193.3

202.4

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (c)

$m

13.0

13.5

13.9

13.0

13.3

13.2

12.9

12.4

Capital expenditure

$m

10.1

6.0

8.3

9.5

13.9

9.5

5.2

7.5

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (d)

$m

192.1

202.8

220.4

220.9

214.9

209.8

208.4

220.5

Total accrual costs (e)

$m

199.5

215.6

232.7

231.6

221.4

223.5

226.3

234.7

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

95 916

101 724

108 612

108 171

114 107

110 027

112 019

113 467

Average non-police staff costs

$

69 859

75 825

86 386

99 633

97 993

83 092

88 078

70 551

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

1 169

1 145

1 193

1 150

1 064

1 088

1 103

1 124

Civilian

FTE

230

227

222

204

185

192

174

199

Other

FTE

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Tasmania

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.6

TABLE 6A.6

Table 6A.6

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, Tasmania

Operational FTE staff

FTE

1 399

1 372

1 415

1 354

1 249

1 280

1 277

1 323

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

43

50

40

48

50

47

46

48

Civilian

FTE

137

126

123

112

102

104

98

158

Other

FTE

23

25

1

20

22

39

Non-operational FTE staff (f)

FTE

203

201

163

160

153

171

166

245

Total staff

FTE

1 602

1 573

1 578

1 514

1 402

1 451

1 443

1 568

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Operational

FTE

27

27

25

24

22

23

19

19

Non-operational

FTE

2

1

1

1

1

3

4

FTE

29

28

26

25

22

24

22

23

Assets by value

Land

$'000

34 504

36 231

35 164

34 976

34 701

35 479

35 097

33 404

Buildings and fittings

$'000

139 752

144 825

147 841

133 756

135 537

137 018

137 651

132 876

Other

$'000

22 651

24 531

26 114

28 318

31 272

27 976

23 224

21 917

Total value of assets

$'000

196 907

205 587

209 119

197 050

201 510

200 473

195 972

188 197

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Source:

Tasmanian Government (unpublished).

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Usercostofcapitaliscalculatedatanopportunitycostof8percentperannumontotalvalueofassets(excludingland).Capitalexpenditureincludesonlycapital appropriations.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure and capital expenditure.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation and the user cost of capital.

Includes redundancy program in 2012-13.

Payroll tax ceased from 1 Oct 2012.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

WiththeformationoftheDepartmentofPolice,FireandEmergencyManagement(DPFEM),mostofthenon-operationalstaffforpolice,fireandemergencymanagement work in a single unit and are all included in this total.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.6

TABLE 6A.7

Table 6A.7

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments

$m

85.4

88.4

91.4

96.5

94.4

104.8

108.9

109.5

Superannuation

$m

12.0

13.7

16.6

17.8

17.1

17.0

16.4

16.5

Payroll tax (a)

$m

Total salaries and payments

$m

97.4

102.1

108.0

114.3

111.5

121.8

125.3

126.0

Other recurrent expenditure

$m

28.2

34.7

36.0

35.1

35.4

36.3

31.5

32.1

Depreciation

$m

3.5

3.4

4.5

5.0

5.5

5.7

6.1

5.6

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

129.1

140.1

148.5

154.3

152.3

163.7

162.9

163.6

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS)

$m

0.6

0.3

0.8

1.1

0.9

1.0

1.2

1.4

$m

128.5

139.8

147.7

153.2

151.4

162.8

161.7

162.2

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (c)

$m

3.3

3.4

3.6

5.9

6.0

6.1

5.6

5.6

Capital expenditure

$m

4.3

8.9

15.6

14.2

4.5

1.8

3.3

2.4

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (d)

$m

129.9

145.6

159.6

163.6

151.4

159.9

160.1

160.4

Total accrual costs (e)

$m

132.4

143.5

152.1

160.2

158.4

169.9

168.5

169.2

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

103 151

109 240

117 483

128 478

118 508

134 481

144 405

138 795

Average non-police staff costs

$

102 787

108 974

86 474

98 973

103 051

101 294

108 774

107 320

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status (f)

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

707

678

706

679

706

682

660

689

Civilian

FTE

112

120

201

191

173

206

188

193

Other

FTE

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, ACT

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax (b)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.7

TABLE 6A.7

Table 6A.7

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, ACT

Operational FTE staff

FTE

819

798

907

870

879

888

848

882

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

22

29

13

11

15

11

11

13

Civilian

FTE

104

108

71

68

80

76

73

73

Other

FTE

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

126

137

84

79

95

87

84

86

Total staff

FTE

945

935

991

949

974

975

932

968

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Operational

FTE

1

8

7

7

6

11

13

14

Non-operational

FTE

na

2

3

2

2

2

1

3

FTE

1

10

10

9

8

13

14

17

Assets by value

Land

$'000

27 681

27 681

27 685

23 950

23 950

23 950

22 900

22 900

Buildings and fittings

$'000

36 368

38 233

38 115

62 850

62 763

63 184

57 785

57 496

Other

$'000

5 360

4 720

6 935

11 105

12 714

13 200

12 542

12 362

Total value of assets

$'000

69 409

70 634

72 735

97 905

99 427

100 334

93 227

92 758

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

– Nil or rounded to zero. na Not available.

Source:

ACT Government (unpublished).

During2009-10,theAFP(incorporatingACTPolicing)improvedAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderstatusrecording.DatanowcaptureallAboriginalandTorres Strait Islander members and account for the FTE increase in 2009-10 from previous years.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is exempt from paying payroll tax.

User cost of capital is calculated at an opportunity cost of 8 per cent per annum on total value of assets (excluding land).

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation, and the user cost of capital.

The ACT does not pay payroll tax, however a 'notional' payroll tax rate for the ACT has been estimated.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, and capital expenditure.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff (g)

ACTPolicingdataforbothOperationalandNon-Operationalstaffingfrom2009-10to2014-15hasbeenrevisedduetoretrospectivemethodologychangestoalign with the Report’s data dictionary.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.7

TABLE 6A.8

Table 6A.8

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Expenditure (b)

Recurrent expenditure

Salaries and payments in the nature of salaries

Salaries and related payments

$m

152.8

169.1

182.3

194.5

204.3

220.8

227.0

240.0

Superannuation

$m

15.3

16.3

17.4

18.3

20.3

23.5

22.8

18.1

Payroll tax (c)

$m

8.9

9.8

10.2

9.9

10.2

11.1

12.2

12.6

Total salaries and payments

$m

177.0

195.2

209.9

222.7

234.8

255.4

262.1

270.7

Other recurrent expenditure

$m

55.5

55.5

55.6

61.2

62.6

59.8

57.4

60.9

Depreciation (d)

$m

8.1

9.2

12.3

14.7

15.3

15.3

16.8

17.2

Total recurrent expenditure

$m

240.6

259.9

277.8

298.6

312.7

330.5

336.2

348.7

Net recurrent expenditure

Revenue from own sources (ROS) (e)

$m

26.8

35.4

41.6

63.4

45.2

42.0

63.5

52.3

$m

204.9

214.6

226.0

225.3

257.2

277.4

260.5

283.8

Capital expenditure

User cost of capital (f)

$m

9.3

12.4

18.8

19.2

19.0

20.1

20.5

23.0

Capital expenditure (g)

$m

14.0

121.9

277.1

15.1

32.0

25.5

28.1

45.8

Expenditure aggregates

Total cash expenditure (h)

$m

246.5

372.6

542.6

299.0

329.4

340.7

347.5

377.4

Total accrual costs (i)

$m

249.9

272.2

296.6

317.8

331.7

350.6

356.7

371.7

Staffing costs

Average police staff costs

$

152 367

162 904

167 189

171 546

171 705

180 097

186 781

194 532

Average non-police staff costs

$

37 284

37 330

40 762

49 876

49 877

58 197

66 093

62 875

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NT (a)

Total recurrent expenditure less ROS and payroll tax

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.8

TABLE 6A.8

Table 6A.8

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NT (a)

Staff by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and operational status (j)

Operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

995

1 045

1 107

1 099

1 187

1 231

1 200

1 183

Civilian

FTE

254

248

284

293

258

332

327

363

Other (k)

FTE

223

235

223

228

206

187

183

181

Operational FTE staff

FTE

1 472

1 528

1 614

1 620

1 651

1 750

1 710

1 727

Non-operational FTE staff

Sworn

FTE

29

23

7

28

8

5

1

5

Civilian

FTE

38

55

48

47

70

44

61

54

Other (k)

FTE

48

31

24

21

60

1

30

Non-operational FTE staff

FTE

115

109

79

96

138

50

62

89

Total staff

FTE

1 587

1 637

1 693

1 716

1 789

1 800

1 772

1 816

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff

Operational

FTE

120

132

129

124

113

116

129

134

Non-operational

FTE

11

5

3

9

2

2

2

FTE

131

137

129

127

122

118

131

136

Assets by value

Land

$'000

6 202

9 253

10 118

10 118

9 981

10 040

10 039

16 869

Buildings and fittings (l)

$'000

85 965

121 295

192 152

188 963

197 396

205 660

215 617

247 631

Other

$'000

30 338

33 191

42 832

50 606

40 305

46 065

40 999

39 878

Total value of assets

$'000

122 505

163 739

245 102

249 687

247 682

261 765

266 655

304 378

(a)

(b)

(c)

Based on actuarial advice on the cost of the schemes, not actuals.

Payroll tax decreased from 5.9 per cent to 5.5 per cent in 2011-12.

TheNTPolicearepartofatri-serviceagencyincorporatingtheNTFireandRescueServiceandtheNTEmergencyService.Wherepossible,allexpendituredirectly relating to the non-police arms of the department has been excluded.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FTE staff REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.8

TABLE 6A.8

Table 6A.8

Unit

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Police service expenditure, staff and asset descriptors, NT (a)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Source:

NT Government (unpublished).

A number of buildings were revalued in 2014-15.

Variations in revenue are as a result of changes to National Partnership Agreements and new initiatives.

Includes police auxiliaries and Aboriginal community police officers.

Structure changes have impacted this data. Some non operational units have been moved to operational units.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, depreciation, and the user cost of capital.

Depreciation is calculated using a straight-line method.

Comprises salaries and payments in the nature of salary, other recurrent expenditure, and capital expenditure.

FortheNT,capitalexpenditureandassetsdatafor2009-10includeassetrevaluationsacrosstheland,andbuildingsandfittings,categories.In2010-11,furtherrevaluationstookplace.Capitalexpenditurein2012-13includescompletionofGapuwiyakPoliceStationandupgradestoAliceSprings,Mataranka,Alice Springs, Katherine Police Stations and the Peter Mcauley centre.

User cost of capital is calculated at an opportunity cost of 8 per cent per annum on total value of assets (excluding land).

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.8

TABLE 6A.9

Table 6A.9

Treatment of assets by police agencies, 2015-16

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Land

Market value

Fair value

Fair value

A mix of Current use ($172m) and Market Values ($84m)

Deprival

Fair Value

Market

Market

Buildings

Written down replacement value

Fair value

Fair value

Mix of current use ($502m) and Market values ($35m)

Deprival

Fair Value

Market

Market

Other assets

Straight-line depreciation over useful life

Fair value

Cost (aircraft are at market valuation)

Cost

na

Cost

Deprival

Cost - only land & buildings revalued

Land

3 yrs

5 yrs

Annual valuations over 5 year rolling plan

Annual

3 yrs

3 yrs

5 yrs

5 yrs

Buildings

3 yrs

5 yrs

Annual valuations over 5 year rolling plan

Annual

3 yrs

3 yrs

na

5 yrs

Other assets

Annual capitalisation of group

5 yrs

No other asset classes are revalued (except aircraft which are done annually)

na

na

na

3 yrs

5 yrs

Buildings

Useful life/Lease term, determined individually

1–50 yrs

10–50 yrs is standard

50 yrs (except for portables depreciated over 20 years)

15–60 yrs

5–90 yrs

25–59 yrs

20–50 yrs

Frequency of revaluations

Useful asset lives (years) (b), (c)

Revaluation method (a)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.9

TABLE 6A.9

Table 6A.9

Treatment of assets by police agencies, 2015-16

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Plant and equipment

6.5–10 yrs

1–40 yrs

5–50 yrs

7–25 yrs

10 yrs

1–40 yrs

3–25 yrs

1–10 yrs

IT equipment

4 yrs

1–10 yrs

2-7 yrs

4-7yrs

3 yrs

5 yrs

3 yrs

3–6 yrs

Office equipment (d)

10 yrs

1–10 yrs

3–10 yrs

7 yrs

10 yrs

1–40 yrs

5 yrs

5–10 yrs

Motor vehicles (e)

Owned vehicles 6.5 yrs

1–3 yrs

1.1–10yrs

5-7 yrs

3-10 yrs

5 yrs

5 yrs

1–10 yrs

Buildings

5 000

5 000

10 000

5 000

10 000

50 000

na

5 000

IT equipment

5 000

5 000

5 000

10 000

10 000

2 000

5 000

Other assets (f)

5 000

5 000

5 000

5 000

10 000

10 000

2 000

5 000

Land

450 130

391 315

500 778

235 992

72 394

33 404

22 900

16 869

Buildings

814 124

1 047 667

976 278

540 984

245 318

132 876

57 496

247 631

Other Assets

470 356

162 041

176 254

250 535

38 768

21 917

12 362

39 878

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Source:

State and Territory governments (unpublished).

– Nil or rounded to zero. na Not available.

ForWA,otherassetsincludeaircraft,vesselsandlivestock;buildingsincludeleasedbuildings;andplantandequipmentincludeaircraft,vessels,livestock,artwork and leased equipment.

For NSW office equipment includes computer software, furniture and fittings, firearms and musical instruments.

DRC=depreciatedreplacementcost;CV=currentvalue;marketvalue=current(net)value,marketsellingpriceorexchangevalue;anddeprivalvaluemaybeeither the DRC of an asset of a similar service potential or the stream of its future economic benefits.

Includesalltransportequipment.However,marineequipmentisamortisedover20yearsandlivestockover8years.Leasedvehicles,includingaircraftandvessels are amortised over the lease term.

Estimated as (1/depreciation rate).

Asset lives for some assets have been grouped with other classifications.

Current asset value as at 30 June 2015 ($'000)

Useful asset lives (years) (b), (c)

Threshold capitalisation levels

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.9

TABLE 6A.10

Table 6A.10

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Real recurrent expenditure

2008-09

$m

2 659

1 848

1 638

1 027

622

199

143

233

8 369

2009-10

$m

2 859

1 991

1 792

1 082

629

210

156

247

8 966

2010-11

$m

3 110

2 111

1 907

1 189

682

221

165

266

9 651

2011-12

$m

3 257

2 202

1 992

1 267

716

209

170

260

10 073

2012-13

$m

3 173

2 213

2 004

1 241

699

202

165

290

9 987

2013-14

$m

3 426

2 356

2 028

1 309

721

212

175

308

10 536

2014-15

$m

3 442

2 510

2 109

1 325

736

211

171

288

10 793

2015-16

$m

3 461

2 598

2 142

1 358

734

215

168

307

10 982

Real recurrent expenditure on police services per person

2008-09

$

380

348

383

465

389

397

409

1 048

390

2009-10

$

403

367

410

478

389

415

435

1 084

410

2010-11

$

433

384

430

513

418

434

451

1 156

435

2011-12

$

449

395

441

531

435

409

457

1 120

448

2012-13

$

432

390

435

502

421

395

435

1 223

436

2013-14

$

459

407

432

513

430

413

455

1 270

452

2014-15

$

455

426

444

514

435

410

442

1 179

457

2015-16

$

451

433

445

521

431

415

427

1 257

459

Average annual percentage change in real recurrent expenditure per person

2008-09 to 2015-16

2.5

3.2

2.2

1.7

1.5

0.6

0.6

2.6

2.4

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

Realrecurrentexpenditure(includingusercostofcapital,lessrevenuefromownsourcesandpayrolltax)onpoliceservices(2015-16 dollars) (a), (b), (c), (d)

Revenuefromownsourcesincludesuserchargesandothertypesofrevenue(forexample,fromsaleofstoresandplant).Itexcludesfinerevenue,moneyreceivedasaresultofwarrantexecution,andrevenue from the issuing of firearm licences.

HistoricaldatamaydifferfromthoseinpreviousReports,becausepopulationdatahavebeenrevised.Population data relate to 31 December ERP for the relevant year.

ABS(variousyears)AustralianDemographicStatistics,Cat.no.3101.0;StateandTerritorygovernments (unpublished).

Timeseriesfinancialdataareadjustedto2015-16dollarsusingtheGeneralGovernmentFinalConsumption Expenditure (GGFCE) chain price deflator (2015-16 = 100) (table 2A.48).

Realrecurrentexpenditureisrecurrentexpenditure,includingusercostofcapital,lessrevenuefromown sources and payroll tax.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.10

TABLE 6A.11

Table 6A.11

NSW

Vic (a)

Qld (a)

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT (b)

Aust

Operational staff

2008-09

87.1

79.7

81.2

84.6

89.9

87.3

86.7

92.8

84.3

2009-10

88.6

90.0

90.8

86.5

91.7

87.2

85.3

93.3

89.5

2010-11

88.4

93.2

89.7

84.9

92.9

89.7

91.5

95.3

90.0

2011-12

88.1

92.2

89.3

87.6

93.2

89.4

91.7

94.4

89.9

2012-13

87.6

94.4

90.6

87.2

94.1

89.1

90.2

92.3

90.5

2013-14

87.7

92.7

92.2

87.8

93.5

88.2

91.1

97.2

90.7

2014-15

87.5

94.1

93.8

87.4

93.1

88.5

91.0

96.5

91.2

2015-16

87.6

93.7

94.9

86.5

92.0

84.4

91.1

95.1

91.0

Non-operational staff

2008-09

12.9

20.3

18.8

15.4

10.1

12.7

13.3

7.2

15.7

2009-10

11.4

10.0

9.2

13.5

8.3

12.8

14.7

6.7

10.5

2010-11

11.6

6.8

10.3

15.1

7.1

10.3

8.5

4.7

10.0

2011-12

11.9

7.8

10.7

12.4

6.8

10.6

8.3

5.6

10.1

2012-13

12.4

5.6

9.4

12.8

5.9

10.9

9.8

7.7

9.5

2013-14

12.3

7.3

7.8

12.2

6.5

11.8

8.9

2.8

9.3

2014-15

12.5

5.9

6.2

12.6

6.9

11.5

9.0

3.5

8.8

2015-16

12.4

6.3

5.1

13.5

8.0

15.6

8.9

4.9

9.0

(a)

(b)

Source:

State and Territory governments (unpublished).

Police staff, by operational status (per cent)

NTpoliceofficersincludepoliceauxiliariesandAboriginalandTorresStraitIslandercommunitypoliceofficers.

InVictoriaandQueensland,acomprehensivereviewofcivilianpositiondescriptions,relativetothedefinitionofoperationalstaffcontainedinthePoliceServicesWorkingGroupDataManual,ledtothereclassificationofasignificantnumberofpositionsasoperationalin2009-10data.Dataforpreviousyears were not revised.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.11

TABLE 6A.12

Table 6A.12

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Very satisfied

%

21.1

20.1

21.9

17.1

21.4

23.2

20.2

18.3

20.6

Satisfied

%

54.1

54.3

53.7

55.0

53.6

52.4

56.6

53.5

54.1

Neither

%

15.1

17.1

17.1

19.4

17.9

16.2

16.4

16.8

16.7

Dissatisfied

%

5.8

4.9

3.7

5.0

4.2

5.2

3.9

7.9

4.9

Very dissatisfied

%

1.7

1.2

1.3

1.8

1.0

1.3

1.2

2.1

1.4

Don't know

%

2.2

2.4

2.3

1.8

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.4

2.2

Total satisfied

%

75.2

74.4

75.6

72.1

75.0

75.6

76.8

71.8

74.7

Total dissatisfied

%

7.5

6.1

5.0

6.8

5.2

6.5

5.1

10.0

6.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

3.89

3.89

3.93

3.82

3.92

3.93

3.92

3.79

3.89

Very satisfied

%

22.5

22.9

22.6

18.5

23.1

22.0

22.3

17.6

22.2

Satisfied

%

50.5

53.0

55.9

51.5

51.3

54.7

53.3

52.0

52.5

Neither

%

17.4

17.0

13.9

18.5

15.9

15.2

18.0

19.4

16.6

Dissatisfied

%

4.7

4.1

3.7

6.0

6.3

4.5

3.3

7.1

4.6

Very dissatisfied

%

2.1

1.1

1.6

2.4

1.5

2.3

0.9

2.1

1.7

Don't know

%

2.8

1.9

2.2

3.1

2.0

1.3

2.1

1.8

2.4

Total satisfied

%

73.0

75.9

78.5

70.0

74.4

76.7

75.6

69.6

74.7

Total dissatisfied

%

6.8

5.2

5.3

8.4

7.8

6.8

4.2

9.2

6.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Likert index (c)

Index

3.89

3.94

3.96

3.80

3.90

3.91

3.95

3.77

3.91

Very satisfied

%

25.0

24.0

23.9

18.4

28.6

25.2

23.5

20.9

24.0

Satisfied

%

50.5

54.1

53.9

55.5

50.4

52.7

56.2

53.0

52.8

Neither

%

16.2

14.7

14.7

17.1

13.4

13.6

15.0

16.8

15.3

Dissatisfied

%

4.8

3.6

3.8

4.7

4.1

5.0

3.0

6.1

4.2

Very dissatisfied

%

1.0

0.9

1.0

2.1

1.0

1.5

0.8

1.2

1.1

Don't know

%

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.1

2.6

2.0

1.5

1.9

2.5

Total satisfied

%

75.5

78.1

77.8

73.9

79.0

77.9

79.7

73.9

76.8

Total dissatisfied

%

5.8

4.5

4.8

6.8

5.1

6.5

3.8

7.3

5.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

3.96

3.99

3.98

3.85

4.04

3.97

4.00

3.88

3.97

2013-14

Very satisfied

%

21.8

26.6

24.5

17.5

25.8

24.9

27.1

20.3

23.5

Satisfied

%

51.6

50.3

51.5

53.2

56.4

52.1

50.8

55.1

51.8

Neither

%

17.6

15.7

16.6

19.8

11.9

15.6

15.7

17.8

16.7

Dissatisfied

%

5.3

3.4

4.1

6.5

3.1

4.4

2.7

3.9

4.5

Very dissatisfied

%

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.4

1.7

1.2

1.6

1.1

1.4

Don't know

%

2.1

2.5

2.2

1.6

1.1

1.8

2.2

1.7

2.1

Total satisfied

%

73.4

76.9

76.0

70.7

82.2

77.0

77.9

75.4

75.3

Total dissatisfied

%

6.8

4.9

5.1

7.9

4.8

5.6

4.3

5.0

5.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

General satisfaction with services provided by the police (a), (b), (c)

2012-13

2011-12

2010-11

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.12

TABLE 6A.12

Table 6A.12

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

General satisfaction with services provided by the police (a), (b), (c)

Index (d)

no.

3.89

4.00

3.97

3.80

4.03

3.97

4.01

3.91

3.93

2014-15

Very satisfied

%

30.6

27.7

31.8

23.1

28.2

29.3

27.1

23.2

29.0

Satisfied

%

47.0

50.1

46.8

51.0

50.0

47.4

50.3

49.2

48.5

Neither

%

16.5

15.0

14.4

19.8

15.7

15.6

17.2

19.7

16.0

Dissatisfied

%

2.5

3.9

3.7

3.8

3.5

4.1

3.1

5.3

3.3

Very dissatisfied

%

1.6

1.2

1.4

0.8

1.7

1.2

0.4

1.5

1.4

Don't know

%

1.8

2.2

1.8

1.6

0.9

2.3

1.8

1.2

1.8

Total satisfied

%

77.6

77.8

78.6

74.1

78.2

76.7

77.4

72.4

77.5

Total dissatisfied

%

4.1

5.1

5.1

4.6

5.2

5.3

3.5

6.8

4.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

4.04

4.02

4.06

3.93

4.01

4.02

4.02

3.88

4.02

2015-16

Very satisfied

%

31.2

28.8

29.0

21.7

29.1

31.2

28.3

26.8

28.9

Satisfied

%

43.7

46.0

46.6

51.6

48.1

48.1

50.2

49.0

46.3

Neither

%

16.7

17.2

16.3

18.3

17.0

13.8

13.8

17.1

16.8

Dissatisfied

%

4.3

4.4

4.3

4.4

3.1

4.5

4.3

4.7

4.3

Very dissatisfied

%

2.6

1.7

1.9

2.3

1.4

1.1

0.5

0.8

2.0

Don't know

%

1.5

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.3

1.2

2.8

1.6

1.7

Total satisfied

%

74.9

74.8

75.6

73.3

77.2

79.3

78.5

75.8

75.2

Total dissatisfied

%

6.9

6.1

6.2

6.7

4.5

5.6

4.8

5.5

6.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

3.98

3.98

3.98

3.88

4.02

4.05

4.05

3.98

3.97

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Very satisfied = 5; satisfied = 4; neither = 3; dissatisfied = 2; and very dissatisfied = 1.

Source:

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.12

TABLE 6A.13

Table 6A.13

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Strongly agree

%

25.4

22.8

22.7

21.1

23.0

26.2

27.6

23.8

23.6

Agree

%

59.2

62.7

63.0

62.4

61.7

61.2

59.9

59.1

61.4

Neither

%

9.9

9.4

9.3

10.5

10.9

7.6

7.5

10.6

9.7

Disagree

%

3.2

3.4

3.5

4.0

2.7

3.3

2.9

4.4

3.3

Strongly disagree

%

1.6

0.8

0.7

1.4

0.9

1.0

1.4

1.3

1.1

Don't know

%

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.8

0.7

0.8

Total agree

%

84.6

85.5

85.7

83.5

84.7

87.4

87.5

82.9

85.0

Total disagree

%

4.8

4.2

4.2

5.4

3.6

4.3

4.3

5.7

4.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

4.04

4.04

4.04

3.98

4.04

4.09

4.10

4.00

4.04

2011-12

Strongly agree

%

26.4

25.2

25.2

21.5

23.8

25.7

29.6

24.7

25.2

Agree

%

58.3

60.6

61.0

61.3

60.0

61.8

59.7

56.3

60.0

Neither

%

10.0

9.1

8.4

10.4

10.0

8.2

7.9

13.0

9.4

Disagree

%

3.0

3.6

3.6

4.4

4.5

3.0

1.8

4.3

3.5

Strongly disagree

%

1.5

0.8

1.2

1.7

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.9

1.2

Don't know

%

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.9

0.7

Total agree

%

84.7

85.8

86.2

82.8

83.8

87.5

89.3

81.0

85.2

Total disagree

%

4.5

4.4

4.8

6.1

5.3

3.8

2.2

5.2

4.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

4.06

4.07

4.06

3.97

4.02

4.09

4.17

4.00

4.05

2012-13

Strongly agree

%

23.9

25.5

25.9

22.4

28.8

28.4

29.6

27.7

25.1

Agree

%

59.9

60.8

61.1

61.3

59.4

58.3

58.1

58.2

60.4

Neither

%

9.7

8.7

8.2

9.6

7.0

8.5

8.7

8.7

8.9

Disagree

%

3.9

3.0

3.0

4.8

3.8

3.1

2.2

4.0

3.5

Strongly disagree

%

0.7

0.9

0.7

0.4

0.4

1.0

0.7

0.7

0.7

Don't know

%

1.8

1.2

1.2

1.5

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

1.4

Total agree

%

83.8

86.3

87.0

83.7

88.2

86.7

87.7

85.9

85.5

Total disagree

%

4.6

3.9

3.7

5.2

4.2

4.1

2.9

4.7

4.2

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

4.04

4.08

4.10

4.02

4.13

4.11

4.15

4.09

4.07

2013-14

Strongly agree

%

23.1

27.1

27.0

22.9

24.7

26.2

33.6

25.5

25.2

Agree

%

62.8

60.2

60.0

62.2

64.9

62.8

56.1

60.7

61.5

Neither

%

9.2

8.3

8.6

8.4

5.7

7.4

6.4

9.2

8.4

Disagree

%

3.0

2.5

3.0

4.8

2.3

1.9

2.5

2.9

3.0

Strongly disagree

%

1.1

0.8

0.7

0.9

1.4

0.8

0.6

0.7

0.9

Don't know

%

0.7

1.2

0.6

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

Opinions on statement 'police perform job professionally' (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.13

TABLE 6A.13

Table 6A.13

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Opinions on statement 'police perform job professionally' (a), (b), (c)

Total agree

%

85.9

87.3

87.0

85.1

89.6

89.0

89.7

86.2

86.7

Total disagree

%

4.1

3.3

3.7

5.7

3.7

2.7

3.1

3.6

3.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (d)

no.

4.05

4.12

4.10

4.02

4.10

4.12

4.21

4.08

4.08

2014-15

Strongly agree

%

28.9

29.8

29.3

27.8

27.3

32.8

33.2

26.3

29.1

Agree

%

61.2

58.9

58.4

59.2

59.9

57.4

56.6

56.0

59.6

Neither

%

7.4

7.6

7.2

9.7

7.1

6.2

6.9

11.7

7.6

Disagree

%

1.4

2.0

3.0

1.8

4.5

2.7

1.2

4.8

2.2

Strongly disagree

%

0.4

1.0

1.2

0.7

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.8

0.7

Don't know

%

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.5

1.7

0.5

0.8

Total agree

%

90.1

88.7

87.7

87.0

87.2

90.2

89.8

82.3

88.7

Total disagree

%

1.8

3.0

4.2

2.5

4.9

3.2

1.6

5.6

2.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

4.18

4.16

4.13

4.12

4.10

4.20

4.23

4.03

4.15

2015-16

Strongly agree

%

35.0

29.5

30.4

29.0

27.0

31.5

34.5

31.3

31.3

Agree

%

53.5

57.3

55.9

57.1

64.2

58.3

54.2

55.5

56.2

Neither

%

6.6

8.8

8.9

9.8

6.2

5.4

8.2

9.3

7.9

Disagree

%

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.5

1.4

3.1

1.9

2.5

2.8

Strongly disagree

%

1.3

0.7

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.5

1.0

Don't know

%

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.7

Total agree

%

88.5

86.8

86.3

86.1

91.2

89.8

88.7

86.8

87.5

Total disagree

%

4.3

3.7

4.1

3.3

2.0

3.8

2.4

3.0

3.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

4.19

4.13

4.12

4.12

4.16

4.18

4.21

4.16

4.15

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Strongly agree = 5; agree = 4; neither = 3; disagree = 2; and strongly disagree = 1.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.13

TABLE 6A.14

Table 6A.14

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Strongly agree

%

19.7

17.2

17.3

15.0

18.1

20.5

21.6

16.8

18.0

Agree

%

54.1

56.1

56.8

54.8

55.4

55.7

54.5

51.8

55.3

Neither

%

10.7

13.7

12.8

14.8

12.0

11.3

12.9

12.7

12.5

Disagree

%

10.9

9.1

9.1

10.6

10.2

8.2

6.4

12.4

9.9

Strongly disagree

%

2.4

1.8

1.9

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

3.8

2.1

Don't know

%

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.4

2.0

2.0

2.5

2.4

2.2

Total agree

%

73.8

73.3

74.1

69.8

73.5

76.2

76.1

68.6

73.3

Total disagree

%

13.3

10.9

11.0

13.0

12.5

10.4

8.5

16.2

12.0

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

3.79

3.80

3.80

3.71

3.78

3.86

3.89

3.67

3.79

2011-12

Strongly agree

%

21.5

19.5

20.3

16.6

17.9

21.2

23.1

18.2

20.0

Agree

%

52.7

55.0

56.5

56.0

54.0

58.4

56.5

51.2

54.7

Neither

%

12.4

14.0

11.2

12.4

13.5

10.3

11.4

13.2

12.6

Disagree

%

9.3

8.0

8.0

10.2

9.4

6.8

5.6

13.1

8.7

Strongly disagree

%

2.0

1.4

2.4

3.0

3.4

1.9

1.3

2.8

2.1

Don't know

%

2.2

2.0

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.4

2.1

1.5

1.9

Total agree

%

74.2

74.5

76.8

72.6

71.9

79.6

79.6

69.4

74.7

Total disagree

%

11.3

9.4

10.4

13.2

12.8

8.7

6.9

15.9

10.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

3.84

3.85

3.86

3.74

3.75

3.91

3.97

3.70

3.83

2012-13

Strongly agree

%

19.6

19.3

20.1

17.2

22.5

25.0

22.4

21.7

19.8

Agree

%

54.2

54.9

57.1

58.5

52.8

53.5

54.8

49.6

55.3

Neither

%

12.6

13.4

11.5

12.4

11.0

10.3

12.6

10.9

12.4

Disagree

%

9.3

8.0

7.8

6.9

9.1

6.9

6.1

11.9

8.3

Strongly disagree

%

1.6

1.7

1.3

1.9

2.3

1.9

1.2

4.0

1.7

Don't know

%

2.7

2.8

2.3

3.0

2.2

2.3

2.9

1.9

2.6

Total agree

%

73.8

74.2

77.2

75.7

75.3

78.5

77.2

71.3

75.1

Total disagree

%

10.9

9.7

9.1

8.8

11.4

8.8

7.3

15.9

10.0

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

3.83

3.85

3.89

3.85

3.86

3.95

3.94

3.75

3.85

2013-14

Strongly agree

%

19.4

21.4

18.8

17.4

19.2

19.8

24.3

20.4

19.7

Agree

%

56.1

53.7

57.9

58.8

58.6

61.2

55.6

53.9

56.4

Neither

%

12.2

13.3

11.9

10.8

11.2

9.2

10.3

11.4

12.1

Disagree

%

7.9

7.9

7.6

8.8

6.4

6.2

5.8

10.6

7.8

Strongly disagree

%

2.2

1.3

2.1

2.2

1.8

1.3

1.8

2.4

1.9

Don't know

%

2.2

2.4

1.7

2.0

2.8

2.4

2.2

1.4

2.2

Total agree

%

75.5

75.1

76.7

76.2

77.8

81.0

79.9

74.3

76.1

Total disagree

%

10.1

9.2

9.7

11.0

8.2

7.5

7.6

13.0

9.7

Opinionsonstatement'policetreatpeoplefairlyandequally'(a),(b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.14

TABLE 6A.14

Table 6A.14

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Opinionsonstatement'policetreatpeoplefairlyandequally'(a),(b), (c)

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (d)

no.

3.84

3.88

3.85

3.82

3.90

3.94

3.97

3.80

3.86

2014-15

Strongly agree

%

21.5

21.6

23.0

19.3

17.3

23.5

26.1

20.4

21.4

Agree

%

58.2

55.9

53.5

56.4

58.5

58.0

49.9

50.8

56.3

Neither

%

11.6

12.9

12.6

14.0

13.1

10.2

15.6

14.3

12.6

Disagree

%

5.7

6.2

7.1

7.5

7.8

4.9

4.6

9.6

6.5

Strongly disagree

%

1.3

1.5

2.0

1.2

1.0

1.5

0.8

3.7

1.5

Don't know

%

1.7

1.9

1.7

1.6

2.4

1.9

2.9

1.3

1.8

Total agree

%

79.7

77.5

76.5

75.7

75.8

81.5

76.0

71.2

77.7

Total disagree

%

7.0

7.7

9.1

8.7

8.8

6.4

5.4

13.3

8.0

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

3.95

3.92

3.90

3.86

3.85

3.99

3.99

3.76

3.91

2015-16

Strongly agree

%

23.4

22.2

22.7

21.1

19.4

25.4

26.3

20.8

22.5

Agree

%

51.8

53.5

53.0

52.6

59.0

54.8

51.1

53.5

53.1

Neither

%

12.6

13.9

13.2

15.5

11.5

10.4

14.9

13.1

13.3

Disagree

%

7.6

6.8

6.9

7.4

7.1

6.1

4.3

7.9

7.1

Strongly disagree

%

2.4

1.6

2.6

1.8

1.3

1.1

0.9

3.1

2.1

Don't know

%

2.1

2.0

1.5

1.6

1.6

2.2

2.6

1.5

1.9

Total agree

%

75.2

75.7

75.7

73.7

78.4

80.2

77.4

74.3

75.6

Total disagree

%

10.0

8.4

9.5

9.2

8.4

7.2

5.2

11.0

9.2

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

3.88

3.90

3.87

3.85

3.90

4.00

4.00

3.82

3.88

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Strongly agree = 5; agree = 4; neither = 3; disagree = 2; and strongly disagree = 1.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.14

TABLE 6A.15

Table 6A.15

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2012-13

Strongly agree

%

14.9

16.3

17.1

14.5

22.7

20.7

20.9

21.7

16.5

Agree

%

57.3

56.4

57.8

60.6

53.6

55.6

58.8

54.9

57.2

Neither

%

17.5

16.9

15.8

15.2

13.9

13.8

13.2

14.9

16.3

Disagree

%

5.8

5.9

5.1

5.6

5.7

4.8

3.1

4.9

5.6

Strongly disagree

%

1.2

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

2.1

0.7

1.1

1.0

Don't know

%

3.3

3.4

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.0

3.2

2.4

3.3

Total agree

%

72.2

72.7

74.9

75.1

76.3

76.3

79.7

76.6

73.7

Total disagree

%

7.0

6.9

6.1

6.4

6.4

6.9

3.8

6.0

6.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (e)

no.

3.82

3.84

3.88

3.85

3.95

3.91

3.99

3.93

3.85

2013-14

Strongly agree

%

14.1

18.0

16.3

14.8

16.5

19.4

24.1

19.4

16.1

Agree

%

58.8

56.5

58.0

58.7

62.3

60.1

55.1

57.3

58.3

Neither

%

17.7

15.5

16.3

17.7

12.4

11.8

14.1

14.9

16.3

Disagree

%

5.6

5.4

5.0

5.1

5.5

3.8

2.9

4.7

5.3

Strongly disagree

%

0.8

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.6

1.6

1.1

0.8

1.0

Don't know

%

2.9

3.4

3.2

2.7

2.6

3.3

2.7

2.9

3.1

Total agree

%

72.9

74.5

74.3

73.5

78.8

79.5

79.2

76.7

74.4

Total disagree

%

6.4

6.6

6.1

6.1

6.1

5.4

4.0

5.5

6.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (e)

no.

3.82

3.88

3.86

3.84

3.91

3.95

4.01

3.92

3.86

2014-15

Strongly agree

%

17.6

19.7

18.7

17.4

17.4

21.9

24.0

18.9

18.5

Agree

%

57.6

56.2

57.8

59.4

57.0

57.9

55.0

57.7

57.4

Neither

%

16.7

16.2

15.3

15.8

17.2

12.3

15.0

15.6

16.1

Disagree

%

4.2

4.4

4.4

3.8

4.2

4.3

2.4

5.0

4.3

Strongly disagree

%

0.9

1.0

1.3

0.6

0.5

0.9

0.4

1.3

0.9

Don't know

%

2.9

2.6

2.5

2.9

3.8

2.7

3.2

1.6

2.8

Total agree

%

75.2

75.9

76.5

76.8

74.4

79.8

79.0

76.6

75.9

Total disagree

%

5.1

5.4

5.7

4.4

4.7

5.2

2.8

6.3

5.2

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (e)

no.

3.89

3.92

3.90

3.92

3.90

3.98

4.03

3.89

3.91

2015-16

Strongly agree

%

17.8

19.3

18.8

18.4

17.8

20.8

21.2

18.3

18.6

Agree

%

56.7

55.7

55.4

53.2

59.6

56.4

58.6

57.7

56.1

Neither

%

16.1

17.6

18.0

20.4

14.9

13.4

14.4

15.5

17.1

Disagree

%

6.0

4.0

3.9

4.5

4.4

5.7

2.4

4.1

4.7

Strongly disagree

%

1.1

0.9

1.5

1.1

1.1

1.0

0.3

1.3

1.1

Don't know

%

2.3

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.2

2.6

3.1

3.1

2.4

Total agree

%

74.5

75.0

74.2

71.6

77.4

77.2

79.8

76.0

74.7

Total disagree

%

7.1

4.9

5.4

5.6

5.5

6.7

2.7

5.4

5.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Opinions on statement 'police are honest' (a), (b), (c), (d)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.15

TABLE 6A.15

Table 6A.15

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Opinions on statement 'police are honest' (a), (b), (c), (d)

Index (e)

no.

3.86

3.91

3.88

3.85

3.91

3.93

4.01

3.90

3.88

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Source:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthequestion.Fortheresponsecategoriesinthetableabove,thescaleisasfollows:Stronglyagree=5;agree = 4; neither = 3; disagree = 2; and strongly disagree = 1.

For2012-13to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Duetoachangeinthewordingofthissurveyquestionin2010-11,thereisabreakinthetimeseriesforthese data.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.15

TABLE 6A.16

Table 6A.16

NSW (d)

Vic (e)

Qld (f)

WA (g)

SA (h)

Tas (i)

ACT

NT (j)

Complaints per 100 000 people

2007-08

43

22

48

44

93

14

106

127

2008-09

50

25

50

63

87

13

109

132

2009-10

46

25

55

53

95

11

98

119

2010-11

51

20

50

42

105

30

75

93

2011-12

48

17

46

38

105

20

62

133

2012-13

45

16

36

41

101

19

60

115

2013-14

45

16

28

43

81

21

48

118

2014-15

45

20

23

43

69

20

41

156

2015-16

43

22

25

42

63

27

38

139

Complaints per 100 sworn (operational) staff

2007-08

20

11

22

19

37

6

56

30

2008-09

24

13

22

27

34

6

54

29

2009-10

22

12

25

23

36

5

52

26

2010-11

24

9

22

19

40

13

39

19

2011-12

23

8

21

17

39

9

34

28

2012-13

22

7

16

19

38

9

32

23

2013-14

22

7

12

21

31

10

27

23

2014-15

22

9

10

20

26

9

24

32

2015-16

21

10

11

19

25

12

21

29

Complaints per 100 000 people - index 2007-08 to 2009-10 = 100 (b)

2007-08 to 2009-10

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

2010-11

109.7

84.4

98.0

79.8

114.5

239.7

72.1

74.3

2011-12

103.1

70.3

89.7

70.6

114.1

157.8

59.1

105.8

2012-13

97.4

65.7

71.8

78.0

109.7

152.9

57.7

91.7

2013-14

96.7

68.4

55.0

81.1

88.7

171.1

45.8

94.1

2014-15

96.1

84.7

45.0

80.1

74.8

161.4

38.7

123.7

2015-16

92.6

92.4

49.1

78.5

68.5

214.8

36.0

110.8

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

ForNSW,datawererevisedduring2010fortheperiod2007-08to2008-09.Thenumberofcomplaintspreviouslypublishedhavechangedduetothelatereceiptorremovalofcomplaintsfromthecomplaintsdatabase.

Trends in complaints (a), (b), (c)

Queenslanddatafrom2007-08to2009-10wererevisedinthe2012ReportduetoretrospectivecaptureofsomecomplaintsandalignmentwiththeReport'sdatadictionary.ThetotalnumberofcomplaintshandledreferstothetotalnumberofcomplaintsregisteredontheQPScomplaintsdatabaseforthestated period.

HistoricaldatamaydifferfromthoseinpreviousReports,becausepopulationdatahavebeenrevised.Population data relate to 31 December ERP in the relevant year.

ForVictoria,datahavebeenrevisedfor2012-13toexcludeinternallygeneratedcomplaintslodgedbystaff. This better aligns with the Report’s data dictionary.

Complaintsdatarefertothenumberofstatementsofcomplaintsbymembersofthepublicregardingpolice conduct when a person was in police custody or had voluntary dealing with the police.

Theunderlyingdataonthenumberofcomplaintsarenotcomparableacrossjurisdictions.Datacanbeusedonlytoviewtrendsovertimewithinjurisdictions.Complaintsdatarefertonumberofstatementsofcomplaintsbymembersofthepublicregardingpoliceconductwhenapersonwasinpolicecustodyorhad voluntary dealing with the police.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.16

TABLE 6A.16

Table 6A.16

NSW (d)

Vic (e)

Qld (f)

WA (g)

SA (h)

Tas (i)

ACT

NT (j)

Trends in complaints (a), (b), (c)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

Source:

State and Territory governments (unpublished), ABS (various years) Australian Demographic Statistics, Cat. no. 3101.0; ABS (various years).

SAdataincludecomplaintsmadetothePoliceComplaintsAuthorityandinternalreportsofallegedbreachesoftheCodeofConduct.Aminorcountingrulechangein2013-14hasledtoadecreaseintherecording of the total number of complaints handled.

For Tasmania, the introduction of the Graduated Management Model means that the total number of complaints handled in 2010-11 rose to include 133 Class 1 Complaints (previously Customer Service Complaints) plus 20 Class 2 Complaints (previously Serious Complaints).

ForWA,statisticsaresubjecttochangewhen(i)theinitialcategorisationofthecomplaintchangesfollowinginvestigation;(ii)inquiriesrelevanttothecountingperiodarereportedandrecordedaftertheclosuredateforfinancialyearreporting;(iii)inquiriescommencedbutnotfinalisedinthecountingperioduncover information which causes the category to change.

For the NT, the introduction of laPro, an holistic complaint and investigation system, has resulted in the consolidation and consistency of data into one system.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.16

TABLE 6A.17

Table 6A.17

Unit

NSW

Vic (c)

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff as proportion of total staff

2008-09

%

1.6

na

2.3

1.8

1.1

1.8

0.1

8.3

2009-10

%

1.7

0.2

2.3

2.0

1.0

1.8

1.1

8.4

2010-11

%

2.4

0.3

2.3

1.7

1.0

1.6

1.0

7.6

2011-12

%

2.4

0.3

2.2

1.5

1.0

1.7

0.9

7.4

2012-13

%

2.1

0.3

2.4

1.6

0.9

1.6

0.8

6.8

2013-14

%

2.4

0.3

2.3

1.5

1.1

1.7

1.3

6.6

2014-15

%

2.5

0.3

2.3

1.4

1.1

1.5

1.5

7.4

2015-16

%

2.6

0.4

2.3

1.4

1.1

1.5

1.8

7.5

'000

114.8

27.2

105.5

51.9

21.4

13.5

4.1

41.5

All people

'000

4 554.5

3 632.8

2 851.3

1 596.8

1 000.1

294.3

247.0

156.9

%

2.5

0.7

3.7

3.3

2.1

4.6

1.6

26.5

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

na Not available.

Source:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander % of population

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population estimate at 31 Dec 2014 derived as the average of the 30 June 2014 and 30 June 2015 estimates.

StateandTerritorygovernments(unpublished);ABS(2014)ExperimentalEstimatesandProjections,IndigenousAustralians(SeriesB),Cat.no.3238.0;ABS(2015)Australian Demographic Statistics (December 2014), Cat. no. 3101.0; table 2A.2 and 2A.14.

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslander,swornandunswornpolicestaff (a), (b)

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderstaffnumbersrelatetothosestaffwhoself-identifyasbeingofAboriginaland/orTorresStraitIslanderdescent.InformationonAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderstatusis collected generally at the time of recruitment.

DatacompriseallFTEstaffexceptintheNTbetween2007-08and2012-13,wheredataarebasedonaheadcount at 30 June.

Datashouldberegardedasindicativeonly.AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderstaffunabletobeseparated prior to 2009-10.

Representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people among all people aged 20–64 years (31 December 2015)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (d)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.17

TABLE 6A.18

Table 6A.18

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Male

2008-09

67.2

70.0

64.2

71.4

70.6

65.6

68.2

64.2

67.8

2009-10

67.3

69.2

64.1

71.7

69.8

64.5

68.2

63.8

67.6

2010-11

67.4

69.1

63.6

71.4

69.6

64.6

66.5

63.4

67.4

2011-12

67.1

69.4

64.2

71.0

69.5

64.7

66.4

63.8

67.5

2012-13

67.2

69.8

65.1

70.6

69.5

64.8

64.7

64.1

67.8

2013-14

67.3

69.9

65.2

70.5

69.3

64.2

66.3

63.8

67.8

2014-15

67.1

69.3

66.1

70.4

69.1

64.2

67.7

63.8

67.9

2015-16

66.9

68.7

65.7

70.1

68.5

64.4

66.3

62.5

67.5

Female

2008-09

32.8

30.0

35.8

28.6

29.4

34.4

31.8

35.8

32.2

2009-10

32.7

30.8

35.9

28.3

30.2

35.5

31.8

36.2

32.4

2010-11

32.6

30.9

36.4

28.6

30.4

35.4

33.5

36.6

32.6

2011-12

32.9

30.6

35.8

29.0

30.5

35.3

33.6

36.2

32.5

2012-13

32.8

30.2

34.9

29.4

30.5

35.2

35.3

35.9

32.2

2013-14

32.7

30.1

34.8

29.5

30.7

35.8

33.7

36.2

32.2

2014-15

32.9

30.7

33.9

29.6

30.9

35.8

32.3

36.2

32.1

2015-16

33.1

31.3

34.3

29.9

31.5

35.6

33.7

37.5

32.5

(a)

Source:

State and Territory governments (unpublished).

Police staff, sworn and unsworn, by gender (per cent) (a)

DatacompriseallFTEstaffexceptintheNTbetween2007-08and2012-13,wheredataarebasedonaheadcount at 30 June.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.18

TABLE 6A.19

Table 6A.19

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Very safe

%

39.6

44.9

45.1

37.9

38.4

47.2

43.4

35.8

42.0

Safe

%

46.3

42.8

44.7

47.2

46.4

41.7

45.2

45.7

45.1

Neither

%

7.0

6.8

5.0

6.6

7.9

5.5

6.3

7.6

6.5

Unsafe

%

4.9

4.0

3.7

6.3

4.8

3.8

4.0

8.4

4.6

Very unsafe

%

1.3

1.0

0.9

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.5

2.4

1.2

Not applicable

%

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

1.3

0.9

0.6

0.1

0.7

Total safe

%

85.9

87.7

89.8

85.1

84.8

88.9

88.6

81.5

87.1

Total unsafe

%

6.2

5.0

4.6

7.9

6.0

4.6

4.5

10.8

5.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

4.19

4.27

4.30

4.14

4.17

4.32

4.28

4.04

4.23

2011-12

Very safe

%

42.4

46.1

45.2

33.7

40.7

48.3

45.0

38.8

43.0

Safe

%

45.2

42.8

44.6

49.3

45.3

42.0

46.0

42.5

44.8

Neither

%

5.4

5.6

4.8

8.2

7.9

4.4

5.2

7.4

5.8

Unsafe

%

4.9

3.9

3.6

6.2

4.2

3.4

2.7

8.5

4.4

Very unsafe

%

1.2

0.6

0.9

1.7

0.9

1.2

0.6

2.6

1.0

Not applicable

%

0.8

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.9

Total safe

%

87.6

88.9

89.8

83.0

86.0

90.3

91.0

81.3

87.8

Total unsafe

%

6.1

4.5

4.5

7.9

5.1

4.6

3.3

11.1

5.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

4.24

4.31

4.31

4.08

4.22

4.34

4.33

4.07

4.25

2012-13

Very safe

%

39.9

44.4

42.7

33.7

41.7

49.1

45.0

39.2

41.3

Safe

%

48.0

44.4

45.8

47.9

44.8

40.8

45.3

44.8

46.2

Neither

%

5.6

5.6

5.9

9.0

6.3

5.6

6.7

6.3

6.1

Unsafe

%

4.6

3.7

3.8

7.5

4.9

2.3

1.8

6.9

4.5

Very unsafe

%

0.5

1.0

0.9

1.1

1.1

1.2

0.6

2.6

0.8

Not applicable

%

1.4

1.0

0.9

0.7

1.1

0.9

0.4

0.2

1.0

Total safe

%

87.9

88.8

88.5

81.6

86.5

89.9

90.3

84.0

87.5

Total unsafe

%

5.1

4.7

4.7

8.6

6.0

3.5

2.4

9.5

5.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

4.24

4.29

4.27

4.06

4.22

4.36

4.33

4.11

4.24

2013-14

Very safe

%

44.0

46.3

45.0

35.6

46.5

51.3

50.4

39.6

44.3

Safe

%

43.5

44.1

44.7

50.4

43.9

41.6

43.4

46.3

44.7

Neither

%

7.2

4.8

5.2

7.7

5.3

4.3

3.3

6.8

6.0

Unsafe

%

4.1

3.5

3.6

5.4

3.0

2.1

2.0

5.5

3.8

Very unsafe

%

0.9

0.6

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

1.7

0.8

Not applicable

%

0.3

0.7

0.5

0.2

0.7

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.4

Total safe

%

87.5

90.4

89.7

86.0

90.4

92.9

93.8

85.9

89.0

Total unsafe

%

5.0

4.1

4.5

6.1

3.7

2.6

2.5

7.2

4.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Feelings of safety at home alone during the night (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.19

TABLE 6A.19

Table 6A.19

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety at home alone during the night (a), (b), (c)

Index (d)

no.

4.26

4.33

4.30

4.15

4.33

4.41

4.42

4.17

4.28

2014-15

Very safe

%

43.6

47.2

48.2

40.9

45.3

49.8

54.1

41.3

45.5

Safe

%

44.8

42.3

43.2

47.2

43.6

41.1

38.6

43.8

43.8

Neither

%

7.2

6.3

4.8

6.7

6.6

5.1

4.9

7.1

6.3

Unsafe

%

3.3

3.2

2.6

4.1

3.1

3.0

1.2

5.8

3.2

Very unsafe

%

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.8

1.4

0.7

Not applicable

%

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.4

Total safe

%

88.4

89.5

91.4

88.1

88.9

90.9

92.7

85.1

89.3

Total unsafe

%

4.0

3.8

3.2

4.9

3.8

3.7

2.0

7.2

3.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

4.28

4.33

4.36

4.24

4.31

4.37

4.45

4.18

4.31

2015-16

Very safe

%

48.3

45.0

45.4

37.2

45.1

49.1

52.2

41.9

45.5

Safe

%

41.9

42.1

43.5

46.9

45.3

39.2

40.4

42.1

43.0

Neither

%

4.8

8.1

5.7

9.2

5.2

6.0

3.6

8.3

6.3

Unsafe

%

3.8

3.7

3.5

5.2

3.3

4.0

3.2

6.3

3.9

Very unsafe

%

0.9

0.6

1.3

1.2

0.5

0.9

0.3

1.4

0.9

Not applicable

%

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.7

0.8

0.3

0.4

Total safe

%

90.2

87.1

88.9

84.1

90.4

88.3

92.6

84.0

88.5

Total unsafe

%

4.7

4.3

4.8

6.4

3.8

4.9

3.5

7.7

4.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

4.33

4.28

4.29

4.14

4.32

4.33

4.41

4.17

4.29

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Very safe = 5; safe = 4; neither = 3; unsafe = 2; and very unsafe = 1.

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.19

TABLE 6A.20

Table 6A.20

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day

Very safe

%

44.2

46.1

45.6

42.8

42.4

51.8

48.3

33.3

44.8

Safe

%

47.0

43.4

43.5

46.8

46.2

39.9

43.4

49.2

45.1

Neither

%

3.8

4.7

4.1

4.4

4.7

2.9

3.6

6.2

4.2

Unsafe

%

2.2

3.0

2.8

3.3

3.8

2.1

3.0

6.2

2.8

Very unsafe

%

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.1

2.0

0.5

Not applicable

%

2.2

2.2

3.3

2.1

2.5

3.0

1.6

3.2

2.5

Total safe

%

91.2

89.5

89.1

89.6

88.6

91.7

91.7

82.5

89.9

Total unsafe

%

2.7

3.5

3.4

3.9

4.2

2.5

3.1

8.2

3.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

4.35

4.35

4.35

4.31

4.30

4.45

4.39

4.09

4.34

2011-12

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day

Very safe

%

48.7

50.6

50.8

42.6

46.5

55.8

54.2

39.2

49.0

Safe

%

42.8

41.6

41.7

45.6

44.9

36.7

40.4

47.4

42.6

Neither

%

4.8

3.7

2.8

4.8

3.4

2.8

3.2

5.4

4.0

Unsafe

%

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.7

1.7

1.9

1.1

4.0

2.2

Very unsafe

%

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.6

1.0

0.1

0.1

1.2

0.5

Not applicable

%

1.3

1.5

2.1

3.6

2.5

2.6

1.0

2.8

1.9

Total safe

%

91.5

92.2

92.5

88.2

91.4

92.5

94.6

86.6

91.6

Total unsafe

%

2.4

2.6

2.6

3.3

2.7

2.0

1.2

5.2

2.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

4.39

4.42

4.43

4.32

4.38

4.50

4.49

4.23

4.40

2012-13

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day

Very safe

%

50.2

51.2

50.1

45.1

49.3

57.9

53.4

41.9

50.0

Safe

%

42.4

40.6

41.9

44.1

41.1

34.8

39.5

44.6

41.7

Neither

%

3.2

3.5

3.2

5.9

3.7

3.2

4.1

6.2

3.7

Unsafe

%

2.0

2.6

2.1

2.6

2.4

1.5

1.6

3.6

2.2

Very unsafe

%

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.5

Not applicable

%

1.5

1.6

2.5

1.8

3.2

2.3

1.2

2.9

1.9

Total safe

%

92.6

91.8

92.0

89.2

90.4

92.7

92.9

86.5

91.7

Total unsafe

%

2.6

3.1

2.4

3.1

2.7

1.7

1.7

4.3

2.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

4.42

4.42

4.43

4.33

4.41

4.52

4.46

4.27

4.41

2013-14

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day

Very safe

%

52.1

51.1

51.3

41.9

51.3

60.7

55.5

44.0

50.7

Safe

%

41.1

39.1

40.2

48.5

40.2

33.6

38.3

45.5

41.0

Neither

%

2.7

4.7

4.0

5.0

3.5

2.5

3.8

5.5

3.8

Unsafe

%

2.4

2.6

2.1

2.1

2.8

1.3

1.2

3.2

2.3

Very unsafe

%

0.4

0.9

0.3

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.5

Not applicable

%

1.2

1.5

2.1

1.9

1.9

1.6

1.0

1.3

1.6

Total safe

%

93.2

90.2

91.5

90.4

91.5

94.3

93.8

89.5

91.7

Total unsafe

%

2.8

3.5

2.4

2.7

3.2

1.6

1.4

3.7

2.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Feelings of safety walking alone in your neighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.20

TABLE 6A.20

Table 6A.20

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety walking alone in your neighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Index (d)

no.

4.44

4.39

4.43

4.32

4.42

4.56

4.49

4.31

4.41

2014-15

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day

Very safe

%

50.4

51.2

53.5

48.4

52.2

57.2

59.7

41.8

51.3

Safe

%

43.2

39.1

37.7

42.6

39.4

34.9

34.1

43.9

40.4

Neither

%

4.1

4.9

3.7

4.9

3.4

3.4

3.2

7.9

4.3

Unsafe

%

1.0

2.9

2.5

2.1

2.7

1.9

1.3

3.5

2.1

Very unsafe

%

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

1.1

0.4

0.9

0.3

Not applicable

%

1.1

1.5

2.3

1.7

2.1

1.6

1.3

2.0

1.6

Total safe

%

93.6

90.3

91.2

91.0

91.6

92.1

93.8

85.7

91.7

Total unsafe

%

1.3

3.3

2.9

2.4

3.0

3.0

1.7

4.4

2.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

4.44

4.40

4.45

4.39

4.43

4.48

4.53

4.25

4.43

2015-16

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day

Very safe

%

54.9

48.5

53.3

48.3

51.3

61.9

57.7

44.7

52.1

Safe

%

36.5

41.5

38.3

41.6

40.0

31.9

36.2

43.7

38.9

Neither

%

4.3

4.5

3.6

3.6

5.4

2.1

3.4

6.8

4.2

Unsafe

%

2.0

3.1

1.8

3.6

1.6

1.8

1.2

2.4

2.4

Very unsafe

%

1.3

0.8

0.6

1.0

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.9

Not applicable

%

1.1

1.5

2.5

1.9

1.5

1.9

1.2

2.0

1.6

Total safe

%

91.4

90.0

91.6

89.9

91.3

93.8

93.9

88.4

91.0

Total unsafe

%

3.3

3.9

2.4

4.6

1.9

2.3

1.4

2.8

3.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

4.43

4.36

4.46

4.35

4.43

4.56

4.52

4.33

4.41

2009-10

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

21.3

21.4

23.7

20.2

20.9

25.5

19.6

22.5

21.7

Safe

%

37.2

38.0

39.0

38.3

38.7

39.6

40.9

32.1

38.1

Neither

%

13.6

14.4

12.5

13.2

14.2

12.6

16.0

11.9

13.6

Unsafe

%

17.1

15.6

13.5

15.4

14.6

12.6

14.8

20.2

15.5

Very unsafe

%

4.4

3.9

4.0

5.1

4.0

2.3

2.6

9.2

4.2

Not applicable

%

6.4

6.7

7.3

7.9

7.5

7.4

6.1

4.1

6.9

Total safe

%

58.5

59.4

62.7

58.4

59.7

65.1

60.5

54.6

59.8

Total unsafe

%

21.5

19.5

17.5

20.5

18.6

14.9

17.4

29.3

19.7

Sample size

no.

4 177

8 554

6 263

3 721

3 287

2 422

2 419

1 529

32 372

Index (d)

no.

3.58

3.61

3.70

3.58

3.63

3.79

3.64

3.40

3.62

2010-11

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

14.2

15.5

15.6

15.1

13.0

20.8

14.1

11.2

14.9

Safe

%

32.0

32.2

31.3

28.9

30.2

32.9

35.0

24.5

31.5

Neither

%

15.6

13.5

12.1

12.8

12.3

11.2

16.6

11.4

13.7

Unsafe

%

18.4

18.4

17.6

21.4

21.9

14.3

17.5

24.5

18.8

Very unsafe

%

4.3

5.5

5.8

6.0

6.1

3.5

3.7

15.6

5.3

Not applicable

%

15.5

14.9

17.6

15.9

16.5

17.4

13.1

12.9

15.9

Total safe

%

46.2

47.7

46.9

44.0

43.2

53.7

49.1

35.7

46.4

Total unsafe

%

22.7

23.9

23.4

27.4

28.0

17.8

21.2

40.1

24.1

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.20

TABLE 6A.20

Table 6A.20

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety walking alone in your neighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

3.40

3.40

3.41

3.31

3.27

3.64

3.44

2.90

3.38

2011-12

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

17.8

17.9

17.6

14.8

16.6

20.9

16.0

12.5

17.4

Safe

%

33.3

35.6

35.9

30.7

32.4

35.1

39.1

28.2

34.2

Neither

%

17.4

13.1

12.7

13.9

14.2

10.6

14.8

13.2

14.5

Unsafe

%

14.5

16.1

14.6

18.2

13.9

13.0

15.2

21.6

15.3

Very unsafe

%

4.4

4.0

3.6

6.5

4.9

3.3

2.4

12.2

4.4

Not applicable

%

12.5

13.4

15.6

15.9

18.0

17.0

12.4

12.3

14.2

Total safe

%

51.1

53.5

53.5

45.5

49.0

56.0

55.1

40.7

51.6

Total unsafe

%

18.9

20.1

18.2

24.7

18.8

16.3

17.6

33.8

19.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

3.52

3.55

3.58

3.35

3.51

3.69

3.58

3.08

3.52

2012-13

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

17.3

17.3

16.2

11.6

18.9

21.3

14.9

15.1

16.6

Safe

%

31.8

33.9

35.5

32.8

30.8

34.0

40.2

27.1

33.2

Neither

%

15.2

13.8

12.7

15.6

13.1

10.5

16.3

12.7

14.1

Unsafe

%

15.5

16.8

15.5

19.9

16.3

13.3

13.9

20.9

16.3

Very unsafe

%

4.9

4.6

4.2

6.3

4.2

3.4

3.3

12.9

4.8

Not applicable

%

15.3

13.6

15.9

13.8

16.6

17.5

11.4

11.4

14.9

Total safe

%

49.1

51.2

51.7

44.4

49.7

55.3

55.1

42.2

49.8

Total unsafe

%

20.4

21.4

19.7

26.2

20.5

16.7

17.2

33.8

21.1

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

3.48

3.49

3.52

3.27

3.52

3.69

3.56

3.12

3.48

2013-14

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

18.1

17.0

15.9

13.6

16.2

23.9

17.3

14.8

16.9

Safe

%

34.9

33.2

33.6

34.0

32.4

35.0

37.1

28.9

33.9

Neither

%

12.6

15.0

13.3

15.2

16.9

11.6

16.8

12.3

14.0

Unsafe

%

16.8

16.0

15.4

17.0

15.1

11.4

12.5

20.9

16.1

Very unsafe

%

3.8

5.4

6.0

6.9

4.9

2.6

3.8

12.2

5.1

Not applicable

%

13.8

13.4

15.8

13.3

14.5

15.5

12.6

10.9

14.1

Total safe

%

53.0

50.2

49.5

47.6

48.6

58.9

54.4

43.7

50.8

Total unsafe

%

20.6

21.4

21.4

23.9

20.0

14.0

16.3

33.1

21.2

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (d)

no.

3.54

3.47

3.45

3.35

3.47

3.78

3.59

3.15

3.48

2014-15

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

16.8

16.4

17.3

14.9

16.9

21.3

19.4

15.6

16.8

Safe

%

37.5

35.7

35.6

34.4

33.6

36.2

39.0

28.2

36.0

Neither

%

14.8

14.0

13.3

13.9

15.6

11.1

15.6

13.9

14.2

Unsafe

%

15.9

14.8

13.1

17.7

13.5

10.6

11.2

19.9

14.9

Very unsafe

%

3.8

4.5

4.0

5.4

4.1

3.7

2.4

9.9

4.2

Not applicable

%

11.2

14.5

16.7

13.8

16.2

17.1

12.5

12.5

13.9

Total safe

%

54.3

52.1

52.9

49.3

50.5

57.5

58.4

43.8

52.8

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.20

TABLE 6A.20

Table 6A.20

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety walking alone in your neighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Total unsafe

%

19.7

19.3

17.1

23.1

17.6

14.3

13.6

29.8

19.1

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

3.54

3.52

3.59

3.41

3.54

3.74

3.71

3.23

3.53

2015-16

Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the night

Very safe

%

22.9

16.0

18.4

15.6

17.6

23.2

18.4

15.8

19.0

Safe

%

31.0

32.6

32.9

35.4

34.4

35.3

38.7

28.9

32.7

Neither

%

12.3

16.4

14.2

12.7

11.8

11.3

16.3

13.6

13.8

Unsafe

%

17.5

17.0

14.6

18.0

17.8

10.8

13.4

21.6

16.7

Very unsafe

%

4.9

5.4

5.1

5.8

4.4

3.1

2.9

10.0

5.1

Not applicable

%

11.2

12.5

14.8

12.5

14.0

16.2

10.3

10.1

12.7

Total safe

%

53.9

48.6

51.3

51.0

52.0

58.5

57.1

44.7

51.7

Total unsafe

%

22.4

22.4

19.7

23.8

22.2

13.9

16.3

31.6

21.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

3.56

3.42

3.53

3.42

3.50

3.77

3.63

3.21

3.50

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Very safe = 5; safe = 4; neither = 3; unsafe = 2; and very unsafe = 1.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 4 of TABLE 6A.20

TABLE 6A.21

Table 6A.21

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

On public transport during the day

Very safe

%

25.3

22.7

26.8

20.0

22.2

21.1

33.0

9.8

24.1

Safe

%

39.0

39.1

34.6

40.2

36.1

27.7

30.4

26.1

37.6

Neither

%

5.4

7.0

3.5

5.3

3.2

3.1

4.4

5.7

5.2

Unsafe

%

2.6

4.6

1.5

3.4

2.4

1.3

1.6

3.3

2.9

Very unsafe

%

0.5

1.2

0.4

1.1

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.7

Not applicable

%

5.3

3.6

5.8

5.6

6.5

7.3

3.9

13.0

5.2

Total safe

%

64.3

61.8

61.4

60.2

58.3

48.8

63.4

35.9

61.7

Total unsafe

%

3.1

5.8

1.9

4.5

3.0

1.6

2.0

4.0

3.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (e)

no.

4.17

4.03

4.28

4.06

4.19

4.27

4.34

3.90

4.15

2011-12

On public transport during the day

Very safe

%

27.4

24.4

27.6

21.0

22.8

19.4

35.3

11.7

25.5

Safe

%

37.2

39.5

34.3

37.3

34.5

27.5

31.5

26.1

36.6

Neither

%

5.8

6.7

3.4

5.8

3.1

3.7

3.0

5.7

5.3

Unsafe

%

2.3

3.8

1.4

4.2

1.5

1.2

0.4

2.8

2.6

Very unsafe

%

1.1

0.7

0.2

0.6

0.5

0.2

0.6

0.7

Do not use

%

21.3

21.1

27.2

25.1

31.3

42.0

27.6

39.9

24.3

Not applicable

%

4.9

3.8

6.0

6.1

6.3

6.0

2.3

13.1

5.1

Total safe

%

64.6

63.9

61.9

58.3

57.3

46.9

66.8

37.8

62.1

Total unsafe

%

3.4

4.5

1.6

4.8

2.0

1.4

0.4

3.4

3.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (e)

no.

4.19

4.11

4.31

4.07

4.24

4.24

4.45

3.97

4.18

2012-13

On public transport during the day

Very safe

%

26.3

23.8

25.1

21.2

23.5

20.6

32.6

13.0

24.5

Safe

%

36.3

37.9

32.9

38.5

32.9

25.6

31.7

24.2

35.6

Neither

%

5.9

6.2

3.7

4.6

4.3

2.7

2.9

4.8

5.1

Unsafe

%

1.2

3.2

1.4

3.3

1.6

1.2

0.4

3.0

2.0

Very unsafe

%

0.6

0.9

0.1

1.3

0.5

0.1

0.3

1.0

0.6

Do not use

%

24.2

24.6

31.0

27.0

31.1

43.4

29.4

43.2

27.2

Not applicable

%

5.5

3.4

5.8

4.1

6.2

6.3

2.6

10.7

4.9

Total safe

%

62.6

61.7

58.0

59.7

56.4

46.2

64.3

37.2

60.1

Total unsafe

%

1.8

4.1

1.5

4.6

2.1

1.3

0.7

4.0

2.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (e)

no.

4.23

4.12

4.29

4.09

4.23

4.30

4.41

3.98

4.20

2013-14

On public transport during the day

Very safe

%

25.7

24.8

24.3

17.6

22.9

19.9

33.4

11.4

24.0

Safe

%

38.7

37.2

29.9

37.0

31.8

26.4

32.7

20.9

35.3

Neither

%

4.1

6.0

6.0

8.5

5.3

2.6

2.6

6.2

5.5

Unsafe

%

3.0

3.7

1.3

4.0

1.8

1.7

1.4

3.7

2.8

Very unsafe

%

0.8

1.1

0.6

1.4

0.6

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.9

Do not use

%

23.6

24.4

32.8

27.7

32.8

42.3

27.3

46.3

27.5

Not applicable

%

4.0

2.7

5.2

3.8

4.7

6.9

2.5

10.8

4.1

Feelings of safety on public transport (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.21

TABLE 6A.21

Table 6A.21

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety on public transport (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Total safe

%

64.4

62.0

54.2

54.6

54.7

46.3

66.1

32.3

59.3

Total unsafe

%

3.8

4.8

1.9

5.4

2.4

1.9

1.5

4.4

3.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (e)

no.

4.18

4.11

4.23

3.96

4.20

4.26

4.39

3.90

4.15

2014-15

On public transport during the day

Very safe

%

25.3

27.3

25.4

22.0

25.2

22.0

36.9

8.8

25.4

Safe

%

41.8

36.1

31.6

35.7

31.1

25.1

28.9

21.7

36.1

Neither

%

4.0

7.3

4.0

6.7

6.7

4.6

3.3

6.5

5.3

Unsafe

%

2.8

3.7

2.1

5.5

2.9

1.7

0.6

4.6

3.1

Very unsafe

%

0.4

1.0

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

1.0

0.5

Do not use

%

21.8

21.9

31.9

27.3

28.4

40.9

29.4

45.8

25.7

Not applicable

%

3.9

2.7

4.7

2.7

5.5

5.5

1.0

11.6

3.8

Total safe

%

67.1

63.4

57.0

57.7

56.3

47.1

65.8

30.5

61.5

Total unsafe

%

3.2

4.7

2.4

5.7

3.1

1.9

0.6

5.6

3.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (e)

no.

4.19

4.13

4.26

4.05

4.18

4.25

4.47

3.77

4.17

2015-16

On public transport during the day

Very safe

%

26.0

24.7

24.8

18.9

24.8

20.4

35.6

8.5

24.5

Safe

%

33.6

34.3

28.5

34.0

29.2

21.6

28.4

22.7

32.0

Neither

%

5.6

8.9

4.9

6.6

4.4

3.7

4.2

8.1

6.3

Unsafe

%

1.9

4.7

1.6

4.2

2.0

1.6

0.8

3.9

2.8

Very unsafe

%

0.5

1.1

0.4

1.6

0.5

0.3

0.1

1.0

0.8

Do not use

%

27.5

24.0

34.6

29.7

34.0

45.1

29.8

47.9

29.3

Not applicable

%

5.0

2.3

5.0

4.9

5.0

7.4

1.1

7.9

4.3

Total safe

%

59.6

59.0

53.3

52.9

54.0

42.0

64.0

31.2

56.5

Total unsafe

%

2.4

5.8

2.0

5.8

2.5

1.9

0.9

4.9

3.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (e)

no.

4.22

4.04

4.25

3.98

4.24

4.26

4.43

3.77

4.16

2009-10

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

8.2

6.2

10.8

6.6

7.2

8.6

11.3

8.0

8.0

Safe

%

21.7

19.5

24.7

17.2

22.8

22.9

28.6

18.1

21.5

Neither

%

13.1

14.2

12.2

12.0

12.3

10.2

14.9

6.6

12.9

Unsafe

%

18.8

20.6

11.7

17.9

11.9

8.9

10.8

9.7

16.8

Very unsafe

%

6.5

8.4

3.8

7.5

4.5

1.6

1.6

4.6

6.2

Not applicable

%

31.7

31.1

36.9

38.9

41.4

47.9

32.9

53.1

34.6

Total safe

%

29.9

25.8

35.4

23.8

30.0

31.4

39.8

26.1

29.5

Total unsafe

%

25.3

29.0

15.5

25.4

16.4

10.5

12.4

14.3

22.9

Sample size

no.

4 177

8 554

6 263

3 721

3 287

2 422

2 419

1 529

32 372

Index (e)

no.

3.09

2.92

3.42

2.96

3.28

3.53

3.55

3.33

3.13

2010-11

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

4.4

4.2

8.3

4.1

4.2

7.1

10.8

3.7

5.2

Safe

%

21.5

17.5

21.7

15.9

18.6

16.9

23.4

13.2

19.6

Neither

%

12.7

12.4

9.9

9.4

9.9

6.5

11.6

7.2

11.3

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.21

TABLE 6A.21

Table 6A.21

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety on public transport (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Unsafe

%

16.7

19.5

11.0

16.8

12.3

6.8

7.3

8.7

15.5

Very unsafe

%

4.8

7.8

3.0

7.5

3.1

1.9

1.8

3.7

5.2

Not applicable

%

8.2

6.1

8.1

8.2

9.3

10.6

6.1

15.2

7.8

Total safe

%

25.9

21.7

30.0

20.0

22.8

24.0

34.2

16.9

24.8

Total unsafe

%

21.5

27.3

14.0

24.3

15.4

8.7

9.1

12.4

20.7

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (e)

no.

3.06

2.85

3.39

2.85

3.17

3.52

3.62

3.12

3.07

2011-12

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

6.4

4.8

8.1

4.1

6.3

6.1

10.4

4.6

6.1

Safe

%

19.4

18.9

22.0

14.7

20.1

16.6

23.2

14.2

19.3

Neither

%

13.2

12.3

10.6

10.1

9.7

7.1

11.3

5.4

11.6

Unsafe

%

16.7

19.5

10.4

17.0

9.0

6.2

8.4

9.4

15.2

Very unsafe

%

4.9

6.4

2.3

7.7

2.2

1.2

1.3

3.1

4.7

Do not use

%

32.9

32.4

37.8

38.0

44.4

53.8

40.7

47.5

35.8

Not applicable

%

6.5

5.7

8.8

8.4

8.7

9.0

4.8

15.9

7.2

Total safe

%

25.8

23.7

30.1

18.8

26.4

22.7

33.6

18.8

25.4

Total unsafe

%

21.6

25.9

12.7

24.7

11.2

7.4

9.7

12.5

19.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (e)

no.

3.09

2.94

3.44

2.82

3.41

3.55

3.60

3.21

3.12

2012-13

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

6.8

5.1

7.4

4.7

7.5

6.0

9.6

5.5

6.3

Safe

%

19.8

19.1

23.1

17.8

16.5

15.6

23.4

12.6

19.7

Neither

%

14.1

13.3

9.9

11.7

9.9

8.0

12.5

7.0

12.2

Unsafe

%

14.1

17.0

8.9

15.4

10.5

6.1

7.0

8.4

13.3

Very unsafe

%

4.4

6.3

2.5

6.6

2.7

1.4

1.1

3.7

4.5

%

32.8

33.1

38.7

36.2

42.7

52.5

40.0

48.9

35.9

Not applicable

%

8.0

6.1

9.5

7.5

10.2

10.4

6.3

13.8

8.0

Total safe

%

26.6

24.2

30.5

22.5

24.0

21.6

33.0

18.1

26.0

Total unsafe

%

18.5

23.3

11.4

22.0

13.2

7.5

8.1

12.1

17.8

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (e)

no.

3.18

3.00

3.46

2.97

3.33

3.50

3.62

3.21

3.18

2013-14

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

6.1

5.3

6.0

3.5

6.5

7.0

9.7

3.6

5.7

Safe

%

20.2

18.2

19.4

13.8

19.0

15.2

22.8

10.3

18.6

Neither

%

10.2

12.3

10.1

12.1

9.1

4.9

9.9

8.4

10.7

Unsafe

%

15.2

16.7

9.8

17.4

11.1

5.5

7.9

7.8

14.0

Very unsafe

%

5.5

7.2

4.4

7.3

2.6

1.7

2.2

4.1

5.5

Do not use

%

37.6

36.7

43.8

41.1

46.0

56.9

43.5

54.1

40.3

Not applicable

%

5.3

3.7

6.6

4.8

5.7

8.8

4.1

11.7

5.3

Total safe

%

26.3

23.5

25.4

17.3

25.5

22.2

32.5

13.9

24.3

Total unsafe

%

20.7

23.9

14.2

24.7

13.7

7.2

10.1

11.9

19.5

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (e)

no.

3.11

2.96

3.26

2.79

3.33

3.59

3.57

3.05

3.09

Do not use

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.21

TABLE 6A.21

Table 6A.21

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Feelings of safety on public transport (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

2014-15

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

6.3

6.7

8.1

3.8

6.9

8.2

9.7

2.7

6.6

Safe

%

24.0

21.8

21.5

16.9

16.2

16.1

23.2

9.3

21.3

Neither

%

13.3

11.3

9.4

11.9

10.8

7.4

13.6

7.5

11.5

Unsafe

%

14.0

16.5

9.8

14.5

12.3

5.4

6.4

8.2

13.4

Very unsafe

%

4.5

5.4

3.1

7.3

3.2

1.1

1.1

5.1

4.5

Do not use

%

32.4

33.9

41.7

41.3

42.3

53.2

43.2

54.4

37.2

Not applicable

%

5.7

4.3

6.3

4.4

8.3

8.6

2.7

12.8

5.6

Total safe

%

30.3

28.5

29.6

20.7

23.1

24.3

32.9

12.0

27.9

Total unsafe

%

18.5

21.9

12.9

21.8

15.5

6.5

7.5

13.3

17.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (e)

no.

3.22

3.13

3.42

2.91

3.23

3.66

3.63

2.89

3.21

2015-16

On public transport during the night

Very safe

%

7.2

5.8

6.4

5.1

6.9

5.7

9.7

2.7

6.4

Safe

%

18.6

19.8

17.2

13.2

18.1

13.1

22.2

9.9

17.9

Neither

%

10.9

12.8

11.3

12.1

7.8

4.8

13.0

6.3

11.2

Unsafe

%

13.0

16.3

10.7

13.7

12.2

4.9

6.9

9.2

13.1

Very unsafe

%

4.1

6.2

2.5

5.8

3.3

1.3

1.7

4.5

4.3

Do not use

%

40.8

35.8

45.2

43.3

44.4

59.4

43.3

58.0

41.6

Not applicable

%

5.3

3.4

6.6

6.8

7.2

10.8

3.0

9.4

5.5

Total safe

%

25.8

25.6

23.6

18.3

25.0

18.8

31.9

12.6

24.3

Total unsafe

%

17.1

22.5

13.2

19.5

15.5

6.2

8.6

13.7

17.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (e)

no.

3.22

3.05

3.30

2.96

3.27

3.56

3.58

2.90

3.17

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Source:

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Unlikeotherjurisdictions,Tasmania,theACTandtheNTdonotoperateasuburbantrainnetworkandrely on buses as the primary means of public transportation.

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

Very safe = 5; safe = 4; neither = 3; unsafe = 2; and very unsafe = 1.

– Nil or rounded to zero.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 4 of TABLE 6A.21

TABLE 6A.22

Table 6A.22

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Major problem

%

13.9

11.0

7.5

10.2

8.3

8.8

6.0

10.7

10.8

Somewhat a problem

%

37.7

35.8

32.7

38.2

31.7

33.3

31.6

35.0

35.6

%

51.6

46.8

40.2

48.4

40.0

42.1

37.6

45.7

46.4

Not a problem

%

40.1

43.8

49.6

41.4

50.0

48.3

51.7

45.0

44.2

Don’t know

%

8.2

9.5

10.2

10.2

10.0

9.5

10.7

9.3

9.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

1.71

1.64

1.53

1.65

1.54

1.56

1.49

1.62

1.63

2011-12

Major problem

%

12.5

10.4

8.7

12.6

7.4

8.5

5.4

11.3

10.6

Somewhat a problem

%

36.1

35.5

31.8

34.2

34.4

35.6

34.9

34.8

34.7

%

48.6

45.9

40.5

46.8

41.8

44.1

40.3

46.1

45.3

Not a problem

%

42.8

45.9

49.7

43.9

48.3

46.8

48.9

43.8

45.7

Don’t know

%

8.6

8.1

9.8

9.2

9.9

9.0

10.9

10.0

8.9

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

1.67

1.61

1.55

1.66

1.55

1.58

1.51

1.64

1.62

2012-13

Major problem

%

11.8

11.0

8.5

11.2

7.9

8.6

4.3

11.9

10.4

Somewhat a problem

%

28.0

27.7

24.6

29.2

23.9

25.1

24.2

28.3

27.0

%

39.8

38.7

33.1

40.4

31.8

33.7

28.5

40.2

37.4

Not a problem

%

47.3

49.0

53.5

46.5

52.7

52.3

55.5

46.9

49.5

Don’t know

%

12.9

12.3

13.4

13.1

15.5

14.0

16.1

12.9

13.2

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

1.59

1.57

1.48

1.59

1.47

1.49

1.39

1.60

1.55

2013-14

Major problem

%

12.6

12.1

8.1

9.8

9.8

8.5

4.3

11.1

10.8

Somewhat a problem

%

27.3

26.4

22.8

29.0

22.7

24.1

24.0

26.5

25.9

%

39.9

38.5

30.9

38.8

32.5

32.6

28.3

37.6

36.7

Not a problem

%

48.5

49.7

55.5

48.6

53.1

54.9

60.1

49.4

50.9

Don’t know

%

11.6

11.8

13.6

12.5

14.4

12.5

11.7

13.0

12.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (d)

no.

1.59

1.57

1.45

1.56

1.49

1.47

1.37

1.56

1.54

2014-15

Major problem

%

15.1

14.6

8.8

12.3

9.5

10.1

6.0

14.6

12.7

Somewhat a problem

%

27.0

28.1

22.9

24.4

23.6

25.8

24.4

28.9

25.9

%

42.1

42.7

31.7

36.7

33.1

35.9

30.4

43.5

38.6

Not a problem

%

44.9

45.6

54.4

51.7

52.2

50.7

56.2

44.4

48.5

Don’t know

%

13.0

11.8

13.9

11.6

14.6

13.3

13.5

12.1

12.8

Opiniononwhetherillegaldrugsareaproblemintheneighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.22

TABLE 6A.22

Table 6A.22

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Opiniononwhetherillegaldrugsareaproblemintheneighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

1.66

1.65

1.47

1.55

1.50

1.53

1.42

1.66

1.59

2015-16

Major problem

%

18.4

18.6

13.3

17.7

13.6

12.7

5.8

19.5

16.7

Somewhat a problem

%

32.6

34.6

27.3

32.9

27.4

31.9

27.5

30.7

31.6

%

51.0

53.2

40.6

50.6

41.0

44.6

33.3

50.2

48.3

Not a problem

%

37.3

36.5

47.4

37.7

45.4

43.7

52.5

37.1

40.1

Don’t know

%

11.7

10.3

12.0

11.7

13.7

11.7

14.1

12.8

11.6

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

1.79

1.80

1.61

1.77

1.63

1.65

1.46

1.80

1.73

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Major problem = 3; somewhat a problem = 2; and not a problem = 1.

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

Total major or somewhat a problem

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.22

TABLE 6A.23

Table 6A.23

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Major problem

%

22.2

22.3

18.4

22.7

19.8

19.3

18.7

16.6

21.2

Somewhat a problem

%

49.7

50.3

50.8

52.7

56.0

53.2

52.7

46.8

51.0

%

71.9

72.6

69.2

75.4

75.8

72.5

71.4

63.4

72.2

Not a problem

%

27.3

27.0

30.4

24.3

23.8

27.2

28.3

36.4

27.4

Don’t know

%

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.5

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 601

2 400

2 400

2 004

28 507

Index (d)

no.

1.95

1.95

1.88

1.98

1.96

1.92

1.90

1.80

1.94

2011-12

Major problem

%

19.6

20.9

19.6

22.4

18.2

19.0

16.7

15.7

20.0

Somewhat a problem

%

48.9

49.6

49.4

51.0

53.3

52.8

56.1

48.3

49.9

%

68.5

70.5

69.0

73.4

71.5

71.8

72.8

64.0

69.9

Not a problem

%

31.1

29.1

30.6

26.2

28.0

27.9

26.9

35.9

29.7

Don’t know

%

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 101

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 502

Index (d)

no.

1.88

1.92

1.89

1.96

1.90

1.91

1.90

1.80

1.90

2012-13

Major problem

%

15.7

17.9

15.1

19.3

14.4

15.1

15.8

12.9

16.4

Somewhat a problem

%

41.9

46.2

44.5

46.4

46.8

50.9

50.5

42.5

44.7

%

57.6

64.1

59.6

65.7

61.2

66.0

66.3

55.4

61.1

Not a problem

%

41.9

35.6

40.1

33.9

38.6

33.7

33.6

44.4

38.6

Don’t know

%

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 201

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 501

Index (d)

no.

1.74

1.82

1.75

1.85

1.76

1.81

1.82

1.68

1.78

2013-14

Major problem

%

16.6

16.8

15.0

16.6

11.8

12.3

12.9

10.8

15.8

Somewhat a problem

%

42.6

44.7

43.7

52.0

49.2

45.8

51.0

46.4

45.1

%

59.2

61.5

58.7

68.6

61.0

58.1

63.9

57.2

60.9

Not a problem

%

40.5

38.0

41.0

30.9

38.8

41.7

35.6

42.2

38.8

Don’t know

%

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.6

0.4

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 401

2 400

2 000

28 301

Index (d)

no.

1.76

1.79

1.74

1.86

1.73

1.71

1.77

1.68

1.77

2014-15

Major problem

%

15.9

15.0

14.4

18.2

14.2

12.5

10.6

13.4

15.3

Somewhat a problem

%

46.5

44.6

44.7

46.8

44.6

47.1

48.5

42.4

45.6

%

62.4

59.6

59.1

65.0

58.8

59.6

59.1

55.8

60.9

Not a problem

%

37.4

40.1

40.6

34.7

40.8

40.2

40.8

43.9

38.9

Don’t know

%

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.3

Opiniononwhetherspeedingcars,dangerousornoisydrivingareproblems in the neighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

Total major or somewhat a problem

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.23

TABLE 6A.23

Table 6A.23

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Opiniononwhetherspeedingcars,dangerousornoisydrivingareproblems in the neighbourhood (a), (b), (c)

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 400

2 400

2 000

28 300

Index (d)

no.

1.78

1.75

1.74

1.83

1.73

1.72

1.70

1.69

1.76

2015-16

Major problem

%

21.3

23.9

15.3

18.8

13.8

17.0

15.0

17.9

19.7

Somewhat a problem

%

51.5

48.6

45.7

53.1

54.4

50.0

55.0

47.8

50.0

%

72.8

72.5

61.0

71.9

68.2

67.0

70.0

65.7

69.7

Not a problem

%

26.9

27.3

38.7

28.0

31.4

32.6

29.3

34.1

30.0

Don’t know

%

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.7

0.3

0.3

Sample size

no.

2 000

8 100

6 000

2 800

2 600

2 000

2 400

2 000

27 900

Index (d)

no.

1.94

1.97

1.77

1.91

1.82

1.84

1.86

1.84

1.90

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

– Nil or rounded to zero.

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Major problem = 3; somewhat a problem = 2; and not a problem = 1.

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthe question.

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Total major or somewhat a problem

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.23

TABLE 6A.24

Table 6A.24

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Very satisfied

%

47.6

55.0

49.8

49.4

52.3

53.6

50.3

45.7

50.7

Satisfied

%

30.7

29.6

35.4

31.5

31.1

30.4

30.1

35.5

31.5

Neither

%

6.0

5.4

5.6

6.1

4.2

5.0

7.8

5.6

5.6

Dissatisfied

%

8.3

5.6

5.9

6.2

5.7

6.7

5.3

6.9

6.6

Very dissatisfied

%

7.3

4.2

3.1

6.4

6.4

4.1

6.2

5.8

5.3

Don't know

%

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.5

Total satisfied

%

78.3

84.6

85.2

80.9

83.4

84.0

80.4

81.2

82.2

Total dissatisfied

%

15.6

9.8

9.0

12.6

12.1

10.8

11.5

12.7

11.9

Sample size

no.

1 100

4 922

3 621

1 448

1 512

1 302

1 352

1 453

16 710

Index (d)

no.

4.03

4.26

4.23

4.12

4.17

4.23

4.13

4.09

4.16

2011-12

Very satisfied

%

52.1

55.8

52.8

52.6

54.8

56.2

53.9

48.9

53.5

Satisfied

%

32.3

29.4

32.3

26.6

28.7

28.3

29.6

33.2

30.7

Neither

%

4.9

6.1

5.9

9.2

6.0

6.0

7.4

5.9

6.0

Dissatisfied

%

5.8

4.8

4.5

4.9

3.9

4.5

5.5

6.4

5.0

Very dissatisfied

%

4.3

3.6

4.3

6.2

5.7

4.7

3.5

4.6

4.4

Don't know

%

0.7

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.9

0.5

Total satisfied

%

84.4

85.2

85.1

79.2

83.5

84.5

83.5

82.1

84.2

Total dissatisfied

%

10.1

8.4

8.8

11.1

9.6

9.2

9.0

11.0

9.4

Sample size

no.

1 092

4 752

3 612

1 494

1 327

1 256

1 302

1 413

16 248

Index (d)

Index

4.23

4.29

4.25

4.15

4.24

4.27

4.25

4.17

4.24

2012-13

Very satisfied

%

52.2

55.0

49.9

49.9

55.8

55.3

49.9

44.7

52.4

Satisfied

%

31.1

29.8

35.0

32.8

29.7

31.1

33.0

35.6

31.7

Neither

%

6.0

6.0

4.8

6.9

4.6

4.4

7.6

7.6

5.7

Dissatisfied

%

4.9

4.4

5.7

5.4

5.0

5.1

5.0

6.3

5.0

Very dissatisfied

%

5.2

4.5

4.2

4.8

4.9

3.7

4.4

5.5

4.7

Don't know

%

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.1

0.3

0.5

Total satisfied

%

83.3

84.8

84.9

82.7

85.5

86.4

82.9

80.3

84.1

Total dissatisfied

%

10.1

8.9

9.9

10.2

9.9

8.8

9.4

11.8

9.7

Sample size

no.

1 046

4 515

3 527

1 516

1 261

1 265

1 201

1 354

15 685

Index (d)

no.

4.21

4.27

4.21

4.18

4.27

4.30

4.19

4.08

4.23

2013-14

Very satisfied

%

56.2

55.2

51.3

47.1

53.3

58.1

55.3

50.5

53.7

Satisfied

%

28.2

28.0

30.7

36.7

30.4

26.6

29.2

32.6

29.8

Neither

%

6.4

6.1

6.4

6.4

6.4

5.2

8.1

7.4

6.3

Dissatisfied

%

4.3

5.1

4.6

4.9

5.2

5.9

4.3

5.6

4.7

Very dissatisfied

%

4.3

5.3

5.8

4.6

4.4

4.0

2.7

3.4

4.9

Don't know

%

0.6

0.4

1.1

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.6

Total satisfied

%

84.4

83.2

82.0

83.8

83.7

84.7

84.5

83.1

83.5

Total dissatisfied

%

8.6

10.4

10.4

9.5

9.6

9.9

7.0

9.0

9.6

Satisfactionofthosewhohadcontactwithpoliceintheprevious12 months (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.24

TABLE 6A.24

Table 6A.24

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Satisfactionofthosewhohadcontactwithpoliceintheprevious12 months (a), (b), (c)

Sample size

no.

930

3 990

2 900

1 368

1 076

1 059

1 055

1 182

13 560

Index (d)

no.

4.28

4.23

4.18

4.17

4.23

4.29

4.31

4.22

4.23

2014-15

Very satisfied

%

62.7

57.8

55.8

49.8

52.0

59.0

56.3

49.0

57.6

Satisfied

%

27.6

28.2

29.5

32.2

32.4

30.2

34.5

34.9

29.2

Neither

%

3.6

5.5

4.3

6.6

5.9

2.6

4.8

5.2

4.7

Dissatisfied

%

3.7

5.2

5.0

8.0

4.2

4.1

2.4

6.4

4.9

Very dissatisfied

%

2.0

3.1

5.2

3.4

5.4

3.9

1.5

3.7

3.4

Don't know

%

0.4

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.6

0.8

0.2

Total satisfied

%

90.3

86.0

85.3

82.0

84.4

89.2

90.8

83.9

86.8

Total dissatisfied

%

5.7

8.3

10.2

11.4

9.6

8.0

3.9

10.1

8.3

Sample size

no.

961

4 164

3 000

1 317

1 013

1 053

1 080

1 236

13 824

Index (d)

no.

4.46

4.32

4.26

4.17

4.22

4.37

4.43

4.20

4.33

2015-16

Very satisfied

%

54.3

53.3

57.1

52.3

55.0

56.7

58.6

50.9

54.5

Satisfied

%

33.0

28.3

26.5

32.2

29.0

28.7

29.3

32.8

30.0

Neither

%

5.0

8.4

7.5

6.6

5.1

7.0

4.5

7.6

6.6

Dissatisfied

%

4.0

6.2

4.2

5.9

5.3

4.9

4.5

6.6

5.0

Very dissatisfied

%

3.6

3.1

4.4

2.6

3.9

2.6

2.8

1.9

3.5

Don't know

%

0.6

0.3

0.4

1.7

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.4

Total satisfied

%

87.3

81.6

83.6

84.5

84.0

85.4

87.9

83.7

84.5

Total dissatisfied

%

7.6

9.3

8.6

8.5

9.2

7.5

7.3

8.5

8.5

Sample size

no.

1 079

4 557

3 272

1 557

1 210

979

1 157

1 369

15 180

Index (d)

no.

4.30

4.23

4.28

4.26

4.28

4.32

4.37

4.24

4.28

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Very satisfied = 5; satisfied = 4; neither = 3; dissatisfied = 2; and very dissatisfied = 1.

Source:

ANZPAA(variousyears)NationalSurveyofCommunitySatisfactionwithPolicing(unpublished).

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachStateandTerritory.InOctober2015,thequalifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformation to assist in the interpretation of these results.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasingle measure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexfor the question.

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.24

TABLE 6A.25

Table 6A.25

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2011

Homicide and related offences (b)

2.1

1.7

2.1

1.7

3.5

2.0

1.1

5.6

2.1

Murder

1.2

1.0

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.6

np

4.8

1.1

Attempted murder

0.9

0.6

1.0

0.6

1.8

np

np

np

0.8

Manslaughter

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.1

np

np

np

0.1

Sexual assault

97.3

72.6

87.1

69.3

82.6

28.9

60.3

136.2

83.3

Kidnapping/abduction

5.7

2.0

1.6

0.9

4.1

0.0

1.1

1.3

3.0

Armed robbery

29.1

29.6

19.8

26.7

30.3

11.7

32.3

21.6

26.8

Unarmed robbery

44.6

30.0

20.1

48.4

32.6

10.9

29.9

23.8

34.3

1.9

2.1

1.0

3.4

2.3

1.9

2012

Homicide and related offences (b)

1.5

1.6

2.3

2.2

3.0

2.5

1.6

9.8

2.0

Murder

0.9

0.7

1.1

1.3

1.5

2.0

np

8.1

1.1

Attempted murder

0.5

0.6

1.1

0.5

1.5

0.6

np

1.7

0.7

Manslaughter

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.1

np

np

0.2

Sexual assault

104.6

73.8

85.8

73.0

80.7

24.0

53.9

138.4

85.7

Kidnapping/abduction

4.8

2.1

1.3

1.0

4.7

1.0

1.6

2.8

Armed robbery

29.2

27.2

24.9

26.0

32.1

17.6

33.4

25.5

27.4

Unarmed robbery

40.8

25.8

19.1

41.5

26.8

9.8

25.4

21.3

30.6

1.7

2.6

1.0

3.5

2.8

1.7

2.0

2013

Homicide and related offences (b)

1.8

1.4

2.0

1.8

2.4

1.9

1.6

10.0

1.9

Murder

1.1

0.8

0.8

1.4

1.1

1.2

np

7.1

1.1

Attempted murder

0.6

0.5

1.0

0.4

1.1

0.8

np

1.3

0.7

Manslaughter

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

np

1.7

0.1

Sexual assault

109.6

68.3

86.3

72.5

81.3

36.5

61.8

152.8

86.6

Kidnapping/abduction

4.1

2.4

1.2

0.8

4.1

1.6

2.6

Armed robbery

26.8

23.8

21.2

30.4

20.5

14.2

19.3

13.4

24.3

Victims of recorded crime — selected crimes against people (per 100 000 people) (a)

Blackmail/extortion

Blackmail/extortion REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.25

TABLE 6A.25

Table 6A.25

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Victims of recorded crime — selected crimes against people (per 100 000 people) (a)

Unarmed robbery

37.0

21.6

17.2

26.5

25.8

9.6

21.9

26.3

26.3

Blackmail/extortion

1.5

3.0

2.0

3.1

2.9

2.2

2014

Homicide and related offences (b)

1.5

1.8

2.4

1.4

2.0

1.7

0.8

4.9

1.8

Murder

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

0.8

1.2

np

3.3

1.0

Attempted murder

0.4

0.6

1.2

0.2

1.0

0.6

np

np

0.6

Manslaughter

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

np

np

0.1

Sexual assault

109.0

71.4

86.0

75.5

91.7

44.1

52.6

163.6

88.3

Kidnapping/abduction

4.1

2.1

0.7

0.9

4.0

1.0

2.3

Armed robbery

23.6

19.5

15.4

25.2

22.5

10.1

24.6

20.0

20.7

Unarmed robbery

27.6

19.6

13.3

25.1

21.4

6.0

19.4

28.2

21.4

1.6

2.6

2.2

3.2

3.1

1.0

1.6

2.3

2015

1.3

1.7

2.2

1.9

2.1

1.2

1.3

6.5

1.7

Murder

0.9

0.9

1.2

1.0

1.2

0.6

np

4.1

1.0

Attempted murder

0.4

0.6

1.0

0.6

0.8

5.0

np

1.6

0.6

Manslaughter

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

np

np

0.8

0.1

Sexual assault

112.9

70.7

87.9

77.6

93.6

31.0

56.0

159.9

89.9

Kidnapping/abduction

3.4

2.0

0.6

1.1

4.8

0.0

1.0

1.2

2.2

Armed robbery

15.8

22.0

15.4

25.5

17.4

8.9

22.0

26.2

18.5

Unarmed robbery

22.6

19.3

13.5

24.2

15.7

8.9

13.1

27.0

19.2

1.8

2.6

1.4

3.1

3.8

1.0

2.3

1.2

2.2

(a)

(b)

Source:

ABS(2016)RecordedCrimeVictimsAustralia,2015.Cat.no.4510.0,Datacubes'VictimsofCrime,Australia','VictimsofCrime,Selectedoffencesstatesandterritories'and'VictimsofHomicide';ABS(2015)AustralianDemographicStatistics,June2015,Cat.no.3101.0; table 2A.1.

Dataarebasedoncrimesreportedtopolice.Ratesper100000werecalculatedusingtheERPatJune30sourcedfromchapter2ofthisreport.

Blackmail/extortion

Blackmail/extortion

Nil or rounded to zero. np Not published.

Homicide and related offences (b)

Rates for homicide and related offences are based on unperturbed data, while other offence rates are based on perturbed data. REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.25

TABLE 6A.26

Table 6A.26

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2011

539.2

559.6

685.7

1109.7

682.4

564.2

538.9

786.9

647.3

268.1

230.3

288.4

454.1

350.0

132.0

201.4

728.5

288.9

266.1

222.5

205.3

325.8

274.8

337.8

221.7

277.1

251.0

2105.4

1993.3

2250.4

3163.1

2503.2

1307.0

2658.8

2698.8

2243.9

2012

530.5

593.2

702.7

1061.6

656.5

509.2

460.4

914.3

649.0

268.2

250.7

316.4

435.6

336.7

164.6

177.8

871.2

298.9

235.9

241.7

246.9

365.4

267.0

260.1

258.6

384.1

258.2

2117.0

2045.1

2344.1

3180.5

2243.2

1118.1

2565.5

2710.8

2258.7

2013

441.4

551.3

602.2

987.2

569.8

508.2

380.3

666.0

571.3

232.3

236.1

284.1

420.7

289.3

166.7

162.0

627.5

269.7

204.0

210.0

224.0

345.7

217.6

259.3

176.3

321.9

227.0

1992.9

1927.1

2179.9

3040.1

2150.8

1216.2

2443.3

2394.9

2133.7

2014

402.5

521.2

482.0

957.4

508.9

564.5

392.0

758.5

523.4

212.3

239.9

235.1

403.0

265.9

154.1

188.1

603.9

250.9

187.7

226.4

180.1

313.5

196.9

238.9

195.1

393.3

213.6

1838.9

1904.8

2064.1

3149.1

2074.0

1378.5

2310.9

2589.8

2066.2

2015

350.9

564.9

457.9

1015.2

504.9

558.6

449.1

751.0

519.4

217.6

250.0

221.7

432.6

273.2

187.9

185.8

583.4

256.5

Victims of recorded crime — selected property crimes (per 100 000 people) (a)

Unlawful entry with intent

Involving the taking of property

Other

Motor vehicle theft

Other theft (b)

Involving the taking of property

Motor vehicle theft

Unlawful entry with intent

Other

Other theft (b)

Unlawful entry with intent

Involving the taking of property

Other

Unlawful entry with intent

Motor vehicle theft

Other theft (b)

Involving the taking of property

Other

Unlawful entry with intent

Involving the taking of property

Other

Motor vehicle theft

Other theft (b)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.26

TABLE 6A.26

Table 6A.26

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Victims of recorded crime — selected property crimes (per 100 000 people) (a)

171.1

257.2

179.4

324.7

189.4

244.9

248.0

354.0

217.0

1777.4

2028.8

2068.4

3568.6

2185.8

1399.3

2753.4

2616.1

2139.2

(a)

(b)

Source:

Dataarebasedoncrimesreportedtopolice.Ratesper100000werecalculatedusingtheERPatJune30sourcedfromchapter2ofthisreport.

Motor vehicle theft

ABS(2016)RecordedCrimeVictimsAustralia,2015,Cat.no.4510.0,Datacubes'VictimsofCrime,Australia'and'VictimsofCrime,Selectedoffences,statesandterritories';ABS(2015)AustralianDemographicStatistics,June2015,Cat.no.3101.0; table 2A.1.

The offences included in ‘Other theft’ can vary between states and territories. ‘Other theft’ includes the offence of ‘theft from a person’, which is not a property crime.

Other theft (b)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.26

TABLE 6A.27

Table 6A.27

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Number '000

Physical assault

164.4

± 27.4

90.4

± 23.7

109.1

± 23.1

61.9

± 11.2

31.6

± 7.2

12.6

± 3.5

9.2

± 3.9

7.4

± 2.9

486.5

± 48.6

Threatened assault (e)

139.7

± 26

152.5

± 24.8

112.3

± 20.5

66.9

± 10.9

39.1

± 7.4

16.3

± 3.7

10.6

± 4.3

6.2

± 2.5

543.7

± 39.4

Robbery

19.9

± 8.7

17.9

± 12.8

19.2

± 9.4

11.3

± 4.2

5.8

± 3

1.6

± 1.2

1.0

± 1.2

0.6

± 0.6

77.4

± 19.3

Sexual assault

17.5

± 8

19.0

± 9.2

7.7

± 5.4

2.2

± 1.6

6.6

± 4.1

0.9

± 1

np

0.9

± 0.8

54.9

± 13.1

No. per 100 000

Physical assault

2 839.0

2 012.2

3 094.5

3 444.6

2 400.9

3 134.3

3 237.2

5 714.3

2 742.7

Threatened assault (e)

2 412.5

3 394.4

3 185.3

3 722.9

2 970.7

4 054.7

3 729.8

4 787.6

3 065.2

Robbery

343.7

398.4

544.6

628.8

440.7

398.0

351.9

463.3

436.4

Sexual assault

317.3

443.7

231.3

128.8

526.2

236.0

np

735.3

325.6

2011-12

Number '000

Physical assault

158.2

± 27

134.9

± 28.3

111.7

± 22.3

62.1

± 13

36.8

± 9.4

16.4

± 4.8

13.6

± 4

6.3

± 2.2

539.8

± 47.6

Threatened assault (e)

169.9

± 24

132.9

± 25.5

135.7

± 23.4

76.9

± 12.8

43.8

± 9.4

18.0

± 4.9

9.4

± 3.5

9.3

± 3.4

596.0

± 47.9

Robbery

14.8

± 9.1

20.2

± 12.3

12.9

± 9.5

10.1

± 5

4.2

± 3.2

0.9

± 0.9

1.9

± 1.9

1.3

± 1

66.4

± 18.6

Sexual assault

16.5

± 9.5

16.9

± 6.8

6.7

± 4.7

5.7

± 3.8

2.2

± 1.7

0.9

± 1.5

1.9

± 1.2

0.7

± 0.8

51.2

± 12

No. per 100 000

Physical assault

2 702.5

3 125.1

3 098.9

3 298.8

2 758.2

4 212.7

4 705.9

4 622.2

2 988.8

Threatened assault (e)

2 902.4

3 078.8

3 764.7

4 085.0

3 282.9

4 623.7

3 252.6

6 823.2

3 299.9

Robbery

252.8

468.0

357.9

536.5

314.8

231.2

657.4

953.8

367.6

Sexual assault

297.4

391.5

196.8

319.4

173.9

235.2

546.8

539.3

298.5

2012-13

Number '000

Physical assault

133.5

± 22.2

122.2

± 23.5

114.5

± 22.2

68.3

± 16.5

34.9

± 6.8

10.5

± 2.9

7.7

± 3.2

6.4

± 1.6

498.0

± 45.9

Threatened assault (e)

144.3

± 29.7

120.5

± 23.4

104.7

± 20.5

65.8

± 12.8

45.9

± 8.6

14.9

± 4.1

10.1

± 3.3

5.6

± 1.8

511.7

± 50.1

Robbery

18.0

± 7.8

18.1

± 8.7

10.4

± 5.8

12.2

± 5.9

2.7

± 2.1

1.9

± 1.2

1.8

± 1.6

0.6

± 0.7

65.7

± 19.4

Sexual assault

13.9

± 6.4

10.5

± 6.6

7.3

± 5.5

5.8

± 3.9

1.1

± 1

1.1

± 0.9

0.5

± 0.7

0.6

± 0.6

40.7

± 13.4

No. per 100 000

3.0

Physical assault

2 250.5

2 636.1

3 106.3

3 488.8

2 589.8

2 586.2

2 607.5

4 542.2

2 706.3

Threatened assault (e)

2 432.5

2 599.4

2 840.4

3 361.1

3 406.1

3 670.0

3 420.3

3 974.4

2 780.8

Robbery

303.4

390.5

282.1

623.2

200.4

468.0

609.5

425.8

357.0

Sexual assault

246.7

237.2

209.2

311.0

86.1

288.5

177.3

454.9

232.7

2013-14

Estimated victims of selected personal crimes, reported and unreported (no. in '000 and no. per 100 000), (a), (b), (c), (d)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.27

TABLE 6A.27

Table 6A.27

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Estimated victims of selected personal crimes, reported and unreported (no. in '000 and no. per 100 000), (a), (b), (c), (d)

Number '000

Physical assault

119.5

± 26

93.6

± 25

85.1

± 16.5

58.2

± 13.1

36.5

± 9

13.5

± 4.2

7.8

± 3.3

7.1

± 2.5

418.2

± 46.7

Threatened assault (e)

145.5

± 28.5

109.8

± 20.9

102.7

± 25.4

81.0

± 22.7

30.6

± 11.2

13.7

± 3.7

6.3

± 3.2

4.6

± 1.5

494.2

± 53.3

Robbery

20.9

± 10.4

15.5

± 8.9

11.3

± 8.7

10.7

± 9.9

2.5

± 2.2

3.8

± 2.2

np

np

65.6

± 19.2

Sexual assault

12.9

± 7.8

14.4

± 9

7.5

± 4.9

10.3

± 5.2

4.8

± 3.2

np

np

np

48.3

± 13.3

No. per 100 000

Physical assault

2 013.4

± 438

2 007.2

± 535

2 316.3

± 449.4

2 894.2

± 652.4

2 706.9

± 666.8

3 282.3

1021.9

2 606.1

± 1754.2

4 982.5

± 1110.9

2 262.5

± 257

Threatened assault (e)

2 451.5

± 490

2 354.6

± 456.3

2 795.4

± 691.5

4 028.0

± 1121.1

2 269.4

± 843

3 330.9

± 892.6

2 104.9

± 1057.8

3 228.1

± 1016.1

2 673.6

± 291.1

Robbery

352.1

± 199.9

332.4

± 171.7

307.6

± 231.7

532.1

± 460.6

185.4

± 179.5

923.9

± 520.4

np

np

354.9

± 116.8

Sexual assault

227.9

± 120.3

323.4

± 187.6

215.4

± 129.4

539.9

± 252.8

374.3

± 263.4

np

np

274.5

± 82.9

2014-15

Number '000

Physical assault

99.0

± 22.3

97.8

± 21.1

91.1

± 19.3

53.5

± 12.3

36.8

± 7.9

10.4

± 3

7.0

± 3.1

5.9

± 2.2

400.4

± 38.5

Threatened assault (e)

126.3

± 22

130.8

± 25.9

110.4

± 19.9

60.6

± 13.5

40.7

± 11

12.6

± 4

10.3

± 3.5

4.2

± 1.4

491.9

± 45.3

Robbery

12.7

± 6.8

14.8

± 9.5

10.8

± 6.3

9.4

± 5.6

6.6

± 3.4

2.1

± 1.5

1.1

± np

np

55.9

± 11.9

Sexual assault

18.7

± 9.4

16.5

± 9.2

12.6

± 6.5

np

1.1

± 1.1

np

np

np

58.6

± 15.6

No. per 100 000

Physical assault

1 640.6

± 369.8

2 064.9

± 445.2

2 451.0

± 518.8

2 639.8

± 605.4

2 701.3

± 577.1

2 520.0

± 726.1

2 331.8

± 1037.5

4 105.8

± 1537

2 137.2

± 205.3

Threatened assault (e)

2 093.1

± 365.1

2 761.6

± 546.7

2 970.2

± 535.6

2 990.1

± 668.1

2 987.6

± 808.1

3 053.1

± 963.4

3 431.0

± 1163.4

2 922.8

± 945.2

2 625.6

± 241.9

Robbery

210.5

± 112.6

312.5

± 199.7

290.6

± 169.2

463.8

± 275.4

484.5

± 249.8

508.8

± 363

np

np

298.4

± 63.8

Sexual assault

325.2

± 163.8

365.3

± 204.1

356.9

± 185.4

np

84.5

± 81.3

np

np

np

328.5

± 87.6

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

np Not published.

Source: ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0.

Threatened assault for face-to-face incidents only.

AvictimisdefinedasapersonreportingatleastoneoftheoffencesincludedintheCrimeVictimisationSurvey.Personswhohavebeenavictimofmultipleoffencetypesduringthereferenceperiodwerecountedonceforeachoffencetypeforwhichtheywereavictimofatleastoneincident.Individualsmaybecountedmultipletimesacrossoffencetypesandconsequentlytheestimated total number of victims cannot be calculated from this graph.

Nos. per 100 000 were calculated using as denominators, the populations published in the relevant ABS data cubes for persons aged 15 years and over.

Some robbery and sexual assault rates include data points with large standard errors so that comparisons between jurisdictions and between years should be interpreted with caution.

95 per cent confidence intervals are presented for estimates for all years and for rates from 2013-14 onwards.

np

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.27

TABLE 6A.28

Table 6A.28

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT (c)

Aust

2010-11

Number '000

Break-in (d)

72.9

± 11.3

49.6

± 10.1

54.1

± 8.4

32.8

± 6

16.8

± 4

6.0

± 1.8

5.7

± 1.8

4.4

± 1.2

242.4

± 19

Attempted break-in (d)

54.3

± 10.6

37.6

± 7.2

39.0

± 6.3

30.6

± 5.3

11.2

± 2.6

6.0

± 1.5

4.2

± 1.8

3.8

± 1.1

186.7

± 15.4

Motor vehicle theft (e)

25.7

± 8

14.2

± 5.5

7.7

± 3.2

7.4

± 3

9.3

± 3.3

3.1

± 1.1

2.0

± 1.1

0.9

± 0.5

70.2

± 11.6

Theft from motor vehicle

76.8

± 8.6

73.5

± 10.7

51.2

± 7.9

48.1

± 7.1

23.0

± 4.1

4.8

± 1.4

8.1

± 1.9

5.5

± 1.4

291.1

± 18.3

Malicious property damage

223.6

± 18

174.7

± 15.8

119.0

± 13.1

95.6

± 8.2

60.5

± 7.5

20.1

± 2.8

19.2

± 2.9

10.1

± 1.6

722.8

± 26.9

Other theft

80.4

± 10.9

76.2

± 9

61.0

± 11.1

33.2

± 4.9

16.9

± 4.6

8.7

± 2

4.8

± 1.4

3.5

± 0.9

284.8

± 17.3

No. per 100 000 households

Break-in (d)

2 669

2 316

3 178

3 739

2 560

2 886

4 121

6 822

2 845

Attempted break-in (d)

1 988

1 756

2 291

3 488

1 707

2 886

3 037

5 891

2 191

Motor vehicle theft (e)

941

663

452

844

1 417

1 491

1 446

1 395

824

Theft from motor vehicle

2 811

3 432

3 008

5 483

3 505

2 309

5 857

8 527

3 417

Malicious property damage

8 185

8 157

6 991

10 898

9 220

9 668

13 883

15 659

8 484

Other theft

2 943

3 558

3 584

3 785

2 575

4 185

3 471

5 426

3 343

2011-12

Number '000

Break-in (d)

78.6

± 10

49.8

± 11.7

52.8

± 8.8

40.8

± 5.8

15.6

± 3.2

5.8

± 1.5

2.4

± 1.2

4.0

± 0.9

249.8

± 17.1

Attempted break-in (d)

52.9

± 10.7

37.4

± 7.9

48.2

± 8

31.4

± 6

13.6

± 4.1

5.2

± 1.2

4.7

± 1.5

3.2

± 1.1

196.6

± 16.6

Motor vehicle theft (e)

23.1

± 8.5

12.1

± 4.3

9.8

± 4.8

7.9

± 2.8

3.8

± 1.8

3.0

± 1.2

0.4

± 0.6

0.9

± 0.5

60.9

± 10.9

Theft from motor vehicle

87.8

± 13.4

82.4

± 10.8

52.0

± 8.2

50.2

± 7.6

20.8

± 4.6

3.9

± 1.3

5.9

± 1.7

3.9

± 1.1

307.1

± 22.3

Malicious property damage

199.9

± 21.5

161.5

± 19.9

102.9

± 10.1

92.2

± 9

58.8

± 6.3

15.3

± 2.7

12.6

± 2.2

6.8

± 1.7

649.9

± 34.4

Other theft

75.9

± 10.7

78.0

± 12.2

57.9

± 8.9

33.4

± 5.1

21.7

± 3.7

9.0

± 1.8

5.5

± 1.5

2.7

± 0.8

284.1

± 22.8

No. per 100 000 households

Break-in (d)

2 822

2 312

3 011

4 472

2 313

2 772

1 733

6 015

2 873

Attempted break-in (d)

1 900

1 736

2 749

3 442

2 017

2 486

3 394

4 812

2 261

Motor vehicle theft (e)

829

562

559

866

563

1 434

289

1 353

701

Theft from motor vehicle

3 153

3 825

2 966

5 503

3 084

1 864

4 260

5 865

3 533

Malicious property damage

7 178

7 497

5 869

10 106

8 719

7 314

9 097

10 226

7 476

Other theft

2 725

3 621

3 302

3 661

3 218

4 302

3 971

4 060

3 268

2012-13

Number '000

Estimated victims of selected property crimes, reported and unreported (no. in '000 and no. per 100 000 households) (a), (b)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.28

TABLE 6A.28

Table 6A.28

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT (c)

Aust

Estimated victims of selected property crimes, reported and unreported (no. in '000 and no. per 100 000 households) (a), (b)

Break-in (d)

68.6

± 9.5

51.1

± 9.2

49.2

± 9.6

41.9

± 6.4

14.5

± 3.2

5.0

± 1.5

4.1

± 1.6

5.5

± 0.9

239.7

± 14.6

Attempted break-in (d)

45.8

± 8.9

34.7

± 9.5

35.7

± 4.5

33.2

± 5.9

11.3

± 2.7

4.2

± 1.3

3.5

± 1.3

2.5

± 0.9

171.0

± 14.1

Motor vehicle theft (e)

19.7

± 5.8

11.7

± 4.1

11.1

± 3.7

8.9

± 3.3

2.6

± 1.3

1.7

± 1

0.5

± 0.4

1.0

± 0.5

57.2

± 8.1

Theft from motor vehicle

68.3

± 12.7

73.7

± 9.7

42.8

± 7.8

59.7

± 7.8

20.8

± 4.1

4.7

± 1.5

3.6

± 1.2

2.5

± 0.9

276.2

± 17.9

Malicious property damage

169.3

± 16.9

142.3

± 12.6

82.6

± 9.6

88.2

± 9.5

42.9

± 4.8

14.1

± 2.1

10.4

± 2.3

6.0

± 1.2

555.9

± 21.8

Other theft

67.0

± 8.9

66.4

± 7.2

54.3

± 8

31.1

± 4

17.7

± 4.3

6.5

± 1.4

3.6

± 1.6

2.3

± 0.8

248.8

± 14.6

No. per 100 000 households

Break-in (d)

2 440

2 334

2 709

4 374

2 130

2 367

2 843

7 948

2 699

Attempted break-in (d)

1 629

1 585

1 965

3 466

1 660

1 989

2 427

3 613

1 926

Motor vehicle theft (e)

701

534

611

929

382

805

347

1 445

644

Theft from motor vehicle

2 429

3 366

2 356

6 232

3 055

2 225

2 497

3 613

3 110

Malicious property damage

6 022

6 500

4 547

9 208

6 301

6 676

7 212

8 671

6 260

Other theft

2 383

3 033

2 989

3 247

2 600

3 078

2 497

3 324

2 802

2013-14

Number '000

Break-in (d)

64.3

± 10.1

51.0

± 11

41.7

± 8.3

45.2

± 8.4

14.8

± 2.7

6.4

± 1.5

4.9

± 2

4.0

± 1.3

228.9

± 22.4

Attempted break-in (d)

41.6

± 7.9

33.6

± 8.9

46.0

± 7.8

30.4

± 6.3

12.4

± 3.8

5.3

± 1.5

2.5

± 1.4

3.3

± 1.1

170.8

± 19.4

Motor vehicle theft (e)

15.8

± 7.1

10.8

± 4.8

10.6

± 4.8

10.0

± 3.8

4.8

± 1.7

1.7

± 0.9

0.4

± na

1.6

± 0.8

54.4

± 10

Theft from motor vehicle

70.7

± 14.6

68.4

± 11.3

34.6

± 7.5

49.4

± 8.7

18.7

± 3.2

5.0

± 1.4

4.7

± 1.6

2.7

± 0.7

258.8

± 21.3

Malicious property damage

146.7

± 19.6

140.5

± 20.9

78.8

± 11.9

88.5

± 10.9

40.5

± 6.9

16.1

± 2

13.5

± 2.7

5.4

± 1.3

528.9

± 40.4

Other theft

76.6

± 11.1

59.0

± 10.4

36.4

± 7.9

35.9

± 5.6

19.2

± 4.1

6.9

± 1.7

3.6

± 1.6

2.8

± 1

238.8

± 15.9

No. per 100 000 households

Break-in (d)

2 298

2 298

2 341

4 817

2 199

3 048

3 363

6 079

2 592

Attempted break-in (d)

1 486

1 514

2 583

3 240

1 842

2 524

1 716

5 015

1 934

Motor vehicle theft (e)

565

487

595

1 066

713

810

275

2 432

616

Theft from motor vehicle

2 526

3 082

1 943

5 265

2 778

2 381

3 226

4 103

2 930

Malicious property damage

5 242

6 331

4 424

9 432

6 016

7 667

9 266

8 207

5 989

Other theft

2 737

2 659

2 044

3 826

2 852

3 286

2 471

4 255

2 704

2014-15

Number '000

Break-in (d)

57.9

± 12

55.9

± 10.1

50.2

± 8.9

47.4

± 7.2

17.1

± 3.8

6.1

± 1.4

4.0

± 1.6

3.9

± 0.7

242.5

± 19.5

Attempted break-in (d)

48.9

± 11.3

37.5

± 8.3

35.6

± 8.3

35.8

± 7

12.7

± 3.2

3.4

± 1.1

4.2

± 1.6

2.4

± 0.7

180.6

± 17.7

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.28

TABLE 6A.28

Table 6A.28

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT (c)

Aust

Estimated victims of selected property crimes, reported and unreported (no. in '000 and no. per 100 000 households) (a), (b)

Motor vehicle theft (e)

11.6

± 4.8

14.0

± 5

9.1

± 4.2

8.6

± 3.1

4.4

± 2

2.1

± 1

0.9

± np

1.0

± 0.6

53.4

± 8.6

Theft from motor vehicle

57.5

± 10.5

74.6

± 9.8

37.9

± 8.1

53.1

± 7.9

19.5

± 3.8

3.8

± 1.2

6.3

± 2

2.6

± 0.9

254.7

± 21

Malicious property damage

137.5

± 22.6

142.2

± 14.5

76.2

± 11.2

86.0

± 10.8

40.4

± 6.4

13.2

± 2.4

9.8

± 2.8

4.7

± 1

511.4

± 34.1

Other theft

75.4

± 10.5

75.2

± 8.5

47.8

± 8.3

30.3

± 5.7

21.1

± 4.2

6.5

± 1.2

4.2

± 1.7

2.4

± 0.9

261.4

± 16.9

No. per 100 000 households

Break-in (d)

2 051

± 426.2

2 492

± 449.3

2 788

± 491.9

4 956

± 747.9

2 496

± 552.7

2 895

± 658.2

2 738

± 1089.4

5 982

± 1090.3

2 715

± 218.2

Attempted break-in (d)

1 732

± 400.7

1 672

± 370.2

1 977

± 461.2

3 743

± 733.6

1 854

± 468.6

1 614

± 509.2

2 875

± 1087.4

3 681

± 1067.8

2 022

± 198.2

Motor vehicle theft (e)

411

± 171.6

624

± 225.1

506

± 235.8

899

± 322.5

642

± 288.2

997

± 484.5

np

1 534

± 925.9

598

± 96.1

Theft from motor vehicle

2 037

± 371.3

3 325

± 436.7

2 105

± 449.8

5 552

± 827

2 846

± 557.8

1 804

± 565.6

4 312

± 1360.7

3 988

± 1445.9

2 852

± 234.8

Malicious property damage

4 871

± 802

6 339

± 646

4 233

± 622.2

8 991

± 1127.8

5 896

± 936.1

6 265

± 1117.4

6 708

± 1893.2

7 209

± 1497.7

5 726

± 381.6

Other theft

2 671

± 371.7

3 352

± 381.1

2 655

± 463.2

3 168

± 596.1

3 079

± 615.6

3 085

± 586.5

2 875

± 1132.5

3 681

± 1334.7

2 927

± 189.3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Source:

95 per cent confidence intervals are presented for estimates for all years and for rates from 2014-15 onwards.

ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0, Data cube 45300DO003.

AvictimisdefinedasahouseholdreportingatleastoneoftheoffencesincludedintheCrimeVictimisationSurvey.Householdsthathavebeenavictimofmultipleoffencetypesduringthe reference period were counted once for each offence type for which they were a victim of at least one incident.

NT data refer to mainly urban areas exclude people living in discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote and very remote areas.

Avictimisdefinedasahouseholdexperiencingatleastonebreak-in/attemptedbreak-in.Break-inisdefinedasanincidentwheretherespondent’shome,includingagarageorshed,had been broken into. Break-in offences relating to respondents’ cars or gardens are excluded.

Avictimisdefinedasahouseholdreportingatleastonemotorvehicletheft.Victimswerecountedonceonly,regardlessofthenumberofincidentsofmotorvehicletheft.Motorvehicletheftisdefinedasanincidentwhereamotorvehiclewasstolenfromanymemberoftherespondent’shousehold.Itincludesprivatelyownedvehiclesandexcludesvehiclesusedmainlyfor commercial business/business purposes.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.28

TABLE 6A.29

Table 6A.29

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT (c)

Aust

2010-11

Physical assault

54.6

49.6

47.4

53.9

38.7

53.0

45.1

54.0

50.7

Threatened assault (d)

37.3

32.3

30.5

34.6

37.9

40.7

38.2

34.8

34.3

Robbery

69.4

50.9

49.1

62.6

72.1

np

np

np

60.0

Sexual assault

39.0

15.9

40.0

np

45.3

np

np

np

31.0

2011-12

Physical assault

57.4

44.8

46.9

47.0

41.4

59.0

48.2

41.5

49.0

Threatened assault (d)

44.9

31.7

39.1

35.8

33.8

40.1

32.8

31.5

38.1

Robbery

55.4

50.1

49.9

70.4

np

31.6

np

56.3

51.5

Sexual assault

35.9

26.4

np

33.4

np

np

44.8

np

30.5

2012-13

Physical assault

48.0

42.0

59.5

44.4

63.3

52.9

40.8

48.2

49.7

Threatened assault (d)

35.4

39.3

38.5

37.2

32.8

45.1

27.3

51.1

37.2

Robbery

49.1

39.8

67.6

51.2

39.5

64.4

np

np

49.7

Sexual assault

53.8

34.7

np

32.5

np

30.1

np

np

34.2

2013-14

Physical assault

54.3

48.3

55.1

48.5

42.7

36.7

38.5

66.2

51.5

Threatened assault (d)

32.9

41.5

40.4

32.8

31.0

31.5

38.1

29.6

34.3

Robbery

58.9

40.8

85.3

80.1

77.7

14.1

np

np

56.4

Sexual assault

59.8

np

62.8

41.2

86.1

np

35.9

np

38.2

2014-15

Physical assault

56.0

± 12.5

52.4

± 12.1

60.6

± 9.7

55.4

± 13.8

48.2

± 8.5

47.7

± 12

70.4

± 21.3

51.3

± 22.6

54.7

± 4.4

Threatened assault (d)

36.4

± 7.5

39.8

± 8.6

43.5

± 8.9

38.2

± 12.1

43.0

± 6.7

45.2

± 13

21.1

± 32

28.8

± 23.1

38.8

± 5.7

Robbery

95.8

± 14.9

67.1

± np

12.5

± 23.7

32.5

± 66.6

60.5

± 32.3

np

np

np

54.0

± 17.9

Sexual assault

29.0

± 34.7

np

17.7

± 11.3

± 35.6

± 39

np

np

np

24.7

± 14.7

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

Reporting rates of selected personal crimes experienced and reported to police (proportion reported) (a), (b)

ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0, Data cube 45300DO003.

Threatened assault for face-to-face incidents only.

np Not published.

NT data excludes people living in discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote and very remote areas and were available for physical assault only.

Datareportonlytheprevalenceofcrime,nottheincidence.Avictimisdefinedasapersonreportingatleastoneoftheoffencessurveyed.Victimswerecountedonceonlyforeachtype of offence, regardless of the number of incidents of that type. Data are for people aged 15 years or over for all categories except sexual assault (18 years and over).

95 per cent confidence intervals are presented for proportions from 2014-15 onwards.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.29

TABLE 6A.30

Table 6A.30

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT(c)

Aust

2010-11

Break-in

81.2

75.3

79.2

80.0

84.6

69.0

87.5

84.8

79.5

Attempted break-in

54.9

45.7

40.1

40.1

41.3

47.0

37.2

42.5

45.8

Motor vehicle theft (d)

np

np

np

80.3

np

np

np

np

94.9

Theft from motor vehicle

47.8

60.8

46.2

50.6

60.7

63.7

55.2

53.4

52.9

Malicious property damage

49.5

44.1

49.9

49.1

50.8

46.2

56.8

54.1

48.5

Other theft

36.2

36.1

35.2

32.6

37.6

47.6

40.8

43.1

36.1

2011-12

Break-in

75.0

84.7

75.1

88.1

79.6

68.6

np

np

79.3

Attempted break-in

38.2

49.1

44.9

37.0

27.2

27.0

32.3

38.2

40.5

Motor vehicle theft (d)

91.3

np

np

82.8

94.5

np

np

71.9

90.7

Theft from motor vehicle

44.9

55.9

46.5

50.2

60.7

50.4

60.5

65.1

50.7

Malicious property damage

43.1

47.7

46.8

55.3

41.9

38.9

40.3

53.8

46.4

Other theft

31.0

42.7

32.5

43.2

43.5

46.1

31.8

45.0

37.5

2012-13

Break-in

78.8

77.1

77.2

78.9

77.0

84.4

72.8

73.9

77.9

Attempted break-in

41.7

47.4

43.0

43.4

34.8

49.2

46.0

38.4

43.2

Motor vehicle theft (d)

94.2

np

87.7

np

100.0

np

100.0

np

92.7

Theft from motor vehicle

56.7

59.3

45.9

57.0

45.1

45.9

59.1

55.5

54.7

Malicious property damage

49.6

47.4

50.7

58.8

46.7

48.7

46.2

60.2

50.5

Other theft

31.6

36.8

35.5

36.8

39.4

39.1

38.2

34.8

35.4

2013-14

Break-in

65.8

74.9

75.2

77.4

75.7

82.1

90.4

63.7

75.6

Attempted break-in

43.2

42.6

40.7

48.7

39.9

53.3

36.4

50.9

42.8

Motor vehicle theft (d)

88.3

88.2

88.0

95.6

65.2

94.1

np

78.9

87.9

Theft from motor vehicle

49.6

49.0

42.3

49.7

56.3

45.3

71.4

67.5

48.7

Malicious property damage

47.9

45.8

46.6

60.8

52.3

51.4

54.2

49.0

49.5

Other theft

39.8

38.5

45.4

35.8

43.6

39.7

53.8

42.1

39.3

2014-15

Break-in

79.6

± 6.8

75.1

± 8.2

66.4

± 9

79.7

± 9.4

76.1

± 9.9

65.5

± 9.7

82.3

± 36.1

68.1

± 17.9

74.5

Attempted break-in

58.9

± 10

40.7

± 9.7

38.3

± 8.1

54.8

± 11.6

46.7

± 12.4

35.9

± 12.8

60.9

± 34.2

39.2

± 15.5

47.0

Motor vehicle theft (d)

84.4

± 8.3

100.0

± 16.8

100.0

± 10

99.2

± 7.3

100.0

± 26.3

100.0

± 13.1

np

87.7

± 37.1

93.7

Reporting rates of selected household crimes experienced and reported to police (proportion reported) (a), (b)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.30

TABLE 6A.30

Table 6A.30

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT(c)

Aust

Reporting rates of selected household crimes experienced and reported to police (proportion reported) (a), (b)

Theft from motor vehicle

49.6

± 5.2

55.4

± 9.3

51.3

± 8.2

56.6

± 9.7

61.3

± 11.6

56.6

± 18.6

59.8

± 13.6

44.4

± 19.7

52.6

Malicious property damage

51.3

± 4.8

48.5

± 4

47.4

± 6.7

62.4

± 5.1

50.9

± 6

44.1

± 5.6

46.9

± 9.9

64.5

± 16.6

51.7

Other theft

37.3

± 11.9

36.8

± 7.8

33.0

± 4.4

48.0

± 10

32.5

± 7.7

33.4

± 14.5

22.9

± 22.9

49.9

± 15.3

36.9

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

ABS (2016) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4530.0, Data cube 45300DO003.

np Not published.

95 per cent confidence intervals are presented for proportions for 2014-15 onwards.

NT data excludes people living in discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote and very remote areas and were available for physical assault only.

Datareportonlytheprevalenceofcrime,nottheincidence.Avictimisdefinedasahouseholdreportingatleastoneoftheoffencessurveyed.Victimswerecountedonceonlyforeachtypeofoffence,regardlessofthenumberofincidentsofthattype.Householdsthathavebeenavictimofmultipleoffencetypesduringthereferenceperiodwerecountedoncefor each offence type for which they were a victim of at least one incident.

A victim is defined as a household reporting at least one motor vehicle theft. Victims were counted once only, regardless of the number of incidents of motor vehicle theft. Motor vehicle theft is defined as an incident where a motor vehicle was stolen from any member of the respondent’s household. It includes privately owned vehicles and excludes vehicles used mainly for commercial business/business purposes.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.30

TABLE 6A.31

Table 6A.31

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Investigations of homicide and related offences

%

62.4

58.2

89.4

77.1

77.1

np

np

np

%

87.3

100.0

93.5

100.0

100.0

np

np

np

Total

no.

101

98

104

35

48

6

16

5

Investigations of sexual assault

%

27.9

33.1

52.1

33.7

37.7

35.0

21.0

62.1

%

36.0

52.2

56.3

45.5

69.6

60.7

32.6

57.6

Total

no.

8 603

4 200

4 199

2 012

1 590

160

219

391

Investigations of kidnapping/abduction

%

45.9

46.7

42.9

51.7

56.8

75.0

%

86.4

89.3

83.3

80.0

91.3

100.0

Total

no.

257

120

28

29

81

4

Investigations of armed robbery (e)

%

37.3

30.3

59.1

46.1

47.6

47.8

10.5

64.1

%

91.6

95.2

88.5

87.9

92.2

100.0

55.6

97.6

Total

no.

1 206

1 304

734

662

296

46

86

64

Investigations of unarmed robbery (e)

%

31.4

25.2

63.8

38.0

41.0

52.2

19.6

56.1

%

83.3

92.7

78.6

74.4

88.1

104.2

50.0

86.5

Total

no.

1 722

1 145

644

626

266

46

51

66

Investigations of blackmail/extortion (e)

%

25.9

35.9

31.8

54.3

34.4

100.0

44.4

100.0

Outcomesofinvestigationsofcrimesagainsttheperson:30daystatus,1Januaryto31December2015(a),(b),(c), (d)

Investigations finalised

Finalised investigations - offender proceeded against

Investigations finalised

Investigations finalised

Finalised investigations - offender proceeded against

Investigations finalised

Investigations finalised

Finalised investigations - offender proceeded against

Finalised investigations - offender proceeded against

Investigations finalised

Finalised investigations - offender proceeded against

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.31

TABLE 6A.31

Table 6A.31

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Outcomesofinvestigationsofcrimesagainsttheperson:30daystatus,1Januaryto31December2015(a),(b),(c), (d)

%

58.3

89.3

109.5

50.0

63.6

60.0

100.0

100.0

Total

no.

139

156

66

81

64

5

9

3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Finalised investigations - offender proceeded against

ABS (2016) Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2015, Cat. no. 4510.0, Data cube 'Victims of Crime, selected offences, states and territories'.

Source:

Nationalstatisticsrequirealevelofuniformitywhencompilingdatafromdifferentstatesandterritories.Anumberofstandards,classificationsandcountingruleshavebeendevelopedsincetheinceptionofthiscollectiontoimprovenationalcomparability.However,overtimesignificantdifferencesandchangesinthebusinessrules,procedures,systems,policiesandrecordingpracticesofpoliceagenciesacrossAustraliahaveresultedinsomediscrepanciesindatabetweenstates and territories for some offence types. Refer to explanatory notes in ABS Cat. no. 4510.0 (2015) for details.

The totals include investigations not finalised and unknown outcomes of investigation.

Investigations finalised includes no offender proceeded against and offender proceeded against.

Armed robbery, unarmed robbery and blackmail can include both person and organisation victims. data include people and organisations.

TominimisetheriskofidentifyingindividualsperturbationhasbeenappliedtotheRecordedCrimeVictimsdatacollection.Thistechniqueinvolvesasmallrandomadjustmentofthestatistics.However,thesumofcomponentsofatotalwillnotnecessarilygivethesameresultasthepublishedtotalinaparticulartable. As such, proportions may add to more or less than 100 per cent.

Nil or rounded to zero. np Not published.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.31

TABLE 6A.32

Table 6A.32

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Investigations of unlawful entry with intent

%

7.2

7.9

20.0

12.4

9.2

17.0

3.1

29.3

%

86.7

98.1

87.9

63.8

88.2

93.0

79.2

76.2

Total

no.

43 316

48 394

32 483

37 515

13 217

3 861

2 480

3 265

Investigations of motor vehicle theft

%

7.9

13.0

38.6

26.5

17.4

26.6

4.5

36.4

%

80.3

94.1

70.2

55.2

82.1

90.8

77.3

76.8

Total

no.

13 032

15 275

8 576

8 416

3 217

1 265

969

866

Investigations of other theft (a)

%

12.5

11.4

31.2

11.7

15.5

24.7

6.0

32.2

%

74.9

98.1

73.4

62.4

83.6

87.3

43.4

33.1

Total

no.

135 407

120 472

98 856

92 483

37 128

7 229

10 759

6 399

(a)

Source:

Outcomes of investigations of crimes against property: 30 day status, 1 January to 31 December 2015

Investigations finalised

Finalised investigations proceeded against

Finalised investigations proceeded against

ABS(2016)RecordedCrime-Victims,Australia,2015,Cat.no.4510.0,Datacube'VictimsofCrime,selectedoffences,statesandterritories'

Investigations finalised

Finalised investigations proceeded against

Investigations finalised

Other theft can include persons or organisations.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.32

TABLE 6A.33

Table 6A.33

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Always

%

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.2

Most of the time

%

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.6

0.3

Sometimes

%

2.2

2.3

2.2

1.1

2.4

1.9

1.4

3.8

2.1

Rarely

%

3.7

4.6

4.2

3.3

4.3

5.1

3.2

6.0

4.1

Never

%

93.5

92.6

92.9

95.4

92.6

92.1

94.9

89.1

93.2

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

6.4

7.4

6.9

4.6

7.2

7.8

5.0

10.9

6.7

Sample size

no.

1 677

7 259

5 586

2 585

2 344

2 152

2 198

1 876

25 677

Index (d)

no.

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.06

1.11

1.11

1.07

1.17

1.10

2011-12

Always

%

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.1

1.1

0.3

Most of the time

%

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.2

Sometimes

%

1.2

1.9

2.0

1.7

1.3

1.7

0.9

3.0

1.6

Rarely

%

3.7

4.8

4.0

2.9

4.4

5.1

3.7

6.3

4.1

Never

%

94.5

92.6

93.3

94.7

93.7

92.5

95.1

89.6

93.7

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

5.4

7.2

6.5

5.3

6.3

7.5

4.8

10.5

6.2

Sample size

no.

1 691

7 277

5 575

2 545

2 327

2 160

2 190

1 864

25 629

Index (d)

no.

1.08

1.10

1.10

1.09

1.09

1.11

1.06

1.17

1.09

2012-13

Always

%

0.1

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.6

0.3

Most of the time

%

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

Sometimes

%

1.2

2.2

1.8

1.1

2.0

2.1

0.8

3.1

1.6

Rarely

%

2.8

3.5

2.8

4.5

4.0

4.0

2.5

5.5

3.3

Never

%

95.6

93.5

94.8

93.3

93.5

93.5

96.4

90.5

94.4

People who had driven in the previous 6 months without wearing a seat belt (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.33

TABLE 6A.33

Table 6A.33

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

People who had driven in the previous 6 months without wearing a seat belt (a), (b), (c)

Refused

%

0.1

Don't know

%

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

Total rarely or more often

%

4.1

6.4

5.3

6.4

6.3

6.4

3.5

9.5

5.4

Sample size

no.

1 681

7 191

5 584

2 569

2 293

2 153

2 207

1 849

25 527

Index (d)

no.

1.06

1.10

1.09

1.10

1.09

1.09

1.05

1.15

1.08

2013-14

Always

%

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.5

0.3

Most of the time

%

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.2

Sometimes

%

1.4

1.6

1.3

1.1

1.7

1.6

0.9

2.3

1.4

Rarely

%

2.4

3.9

3.2

3.5

4.5

4.0

3.5

4.8

3.3

Never

%

95.6

93.7

94.8

95.0

93.0

93.5

94.8

91.6

94.6

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.2

Total rarely or more often

%

4.3

6.1

5.0

4.9

6.8

6.2

4.9

8.2

5.2

Sample size

no.

1 683

7 232

5 438

2 564

2 268

2 121

2 198

1 843

25 347

Index (d)

no.

1.07

1.09

1.08

1.07

1.10

1.10

1.07

1.13

1.08

2014-15

Always

%

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.3

Most of the time

%

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

Sometimes

%

2.3

1.6

1.1

0.4

2.2

1.3

0.7

2.6

1.6

Rarely

%

3.8

3.8

2.1

2.8

2.7

4.5

3.4

4.8

3.3

Never

%

93.6

93.7

96.1

96.0

94.5

93.6

95.4

92.1

94.5

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

Total rarely or more often

%

6.3

6.1

3.7

3.8

5.2

6.3

4.5

7.9

5.4

Sample size

no.

1 684

7 197

5 358

2 517

2 234

2 142

2 173

1 845

25 150

Index (d)

no.

1.09

1.10

1.06

1.05

1.08

1.09

1.06

1.12

1.08

2015-16

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.33

TABLE 6A.33

Table 6A.33

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

People who had driven in the previous 6 months without wearing a seat belt (a), (b), (c)

Always

%

0.1

0.4

0.9

0.2

0.5

0.2

0.2

Most of the time

%

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.8

0.3

1.0

0.2

Sometimes

%

0.4

1.4

1.0

1.1

1.7

2.8

0.5

2.7

1.0

Rarely

%

2.8

2.9

4.0

2.3

3.3

4.4

2.4

6.1

3.1

Never

%

96.8

94.9

94.2

96.5

93.9

91.8

96.1

89.2

95.3

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.1

0.8

Total rarely or more often

%

3.2

4.9

5.6

3.6

6.0

8.2

3.7

10.0

4.5

Sample size

no.

1 705

7 271

5 424

2 553

2 288

1 787

2 178

1 858

25 064

Index (d)

no.

1.04

1.08

1.08

1.05

1.11

1.13

1.07

1.15

1.07

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Always = 5; most of the time = 4; sometimes = 3; rarely =2; and never =1.

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Surveyresultsaresubjecttosamplingerror.RefertotheStatisticalcontextsectioninChapter2forinformationtoassistintheinterpretationoftheseresults.

Asummationindexmethodbasedonanintervalscaleaggregatessurveyresponsestoprovideasinglemeasureofthegeneral(or'average')levelofperception.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory.Thetotalscoresforeachcategoryaresummedanddividedbythetotalnumberofresponsestoderivethesummationindexforthequestion.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverin each State and Territory. In October 2015, the qualifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.33

TABLE 6A.34

Table 6A.34

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Always

%

0.2

0.2

Most of the time

%

0.1

0.1

0.1

Sometimes

%

1.8

1.7

1.3

4.2

1.6

2.2

1.8

3.5

1.9

Rarely

%

6.7

7.2

7.0

10.2

10.1

9.2

9.5

11.0

7.7

Never

%

91.5

91.0

91.6

85.3

88.1

88.6

88.4

85.4

90.3

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

8.5

9.0

8.3

14.4

12.0

11.4

11.5

14.6

9.6

Sample size

no.

1 677

7 259

5 586

2 585

2 344

2 152

2 198

1 876

25 677

Index (d)

no.

1.10

1.10

1.09

1.18

1.14

1.13

1.13

1.18

1.11

2011-12

Always

%

0.2

0.2

Most of the time

%

0.3

0.4

0.1

Sometimes

%

2.0

1.8

1.3

2.8

1.8

2.6

1.3

3.8

1.9

Rarely

%

7.9

7.6

7.6

10.1

10.5

7.9

8.7

9.9

8.3

Never

%

89.7

90.3

91.0

86.5

87.4

89.4

90.0

86.1

89.6

Refused

%

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

10.2

9.4

8.9

13.5

12.5

10.5

10.0

13.7

10.3

Sample size

no.

1 691

7 277

5 575

2 545

2 327

2 160

2 190

1 864

25 629

Index (d)

no.

1.13

1.11

1.10

1.18

1.15

1.13

1.11

1.18

1.13

2012-13

Always

%

Most of the time

%

0.2

0.1

Sometimes

%

1.1

1.3

1.0

2.3

1.5

1.2

0.8

2.0

1.3

Rarely

%

4.6

7.1

5.9

9.5

7.7

8.4

8.9

9.7

6.5

Never

%

94.2

91.4

93.0

88.0

90.6

90.3

90.3

88.1

92.1

People who had driven in the previous 6 months when possibly over the alcohol limit (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.34

TABLE 6A.34

Table 6A.34

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

People who had driven in the previous 6 months when possibly over the alcohol limit (a), (b), (c)

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

5.7

8.4

6.9

11.8

9.4

9.6

9.7

11.8

7.8

Sample size

no.

1 681

7 191

5 584

2 569

2 293

2 153

2 207

1 849

25 527

Index (d)

no.

1.07

1.10

1.08

1.14

1.11

1.11

1.10

1.14

1.09

2013-14

Always

%

Most of the time

%

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

Sometimes

%

1.4

1.1

0.7

1.4

0.9

2.0

1.7

1.5

1.2

Rarely

%

7.2

5.9

4.9

6.6

8.1

7.1

7.4

8.9

6.4

Never

%

91.2

92.5

94.2

91.7

90.9

90.8

90.8

89.3

92.2

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

Total rarely or more often

%

8.6

7.2

5.7

8.1

9.1

9.1

9.1

10.5

7.7

Sample size

no.

1 683

7 232

5 438

2 564

2 268

2 121

2 198

1 843

25 347

Index (d)

no.

1.10

1.09

1.07

1.10

1.10

1.11

1.11

1.12

1.09

2014-15

Always

%

0.1

Most of the time

%

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

Sometimes

%

1.0

1.0

0.5

2.3

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.1

Rarely

%

5.2

5.9

5.1

10.0

11.2

7.5

8.1

10.0

6.5

Never

%

93.6

93.0

94.0

87.4

87.4

91.2

90.6

88.6

92.2

Refused

%

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.1

0.1

0.3

Total rarely or more often

%

6.4

6.9

5.7

12.3

12.3

8.8

9.3

11.4

7.7

Sample size

no.

1 684

7 197

5 358

2 517

2 234

2 142

2 173

1 845

25 150

Index (d)

no.

1.08

1.08

1.06

1.15

1.14

1.10

1.10

1.13

1.09

2015-16

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.34

TABLE 6A.34

Table 6A.34

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

People who had driven in the previous 6 months when possibly over the alcohol limit (a), (b), (c)

Always

%

0.7

0.1

Most of the time

%

0.2

0.1

0.1

Sometimes

%

0.5

1.1

0.7

1.6

1.0

2.1

0.7

2.0

0.9

Rarely

%

5.5

5.2

5.6

8.9

6.8

6.7

6.6

10.1

6.0

Never

%

93.8

93.5

93.3

89.3

91.4

91.1

92.7

87.6

92.8

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

Total rarely or more often

%

6.0

6.3

6.5

10.5

8.6

8.8

7.3

12.1

7.1

Sample size

no.

1 705

7 271

5 424

2 553

2 288

1 787

2 178

1 858

25 064

Index (d)

no.

1.06

1.08

1.08

1.12

1.12

1.11

1.08

1.14

1.08

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

Survey results are subject to sampling error. Refer to the Statistical context section in Chapter 2 for information to assist in the interpretation of these results.

A summation index method based on an interval scale aggregates survey responses to provide a single measure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineach State and Territory. In October 2015, the qualifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Always = 5; most of the time = 4; sometimes = 3; rarely = 2; and never = 1.

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryaremultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthe category. The total scores for each category are summed and divided by the total number of responses to derive the summation index for the question.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.34

TABLE 6A.35

Table 6A.35

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

2010-11

Always

%

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.6

0.9

0.3

0.4

Most of the time

%

1.9

1.1

1.3

2.8

0.8

1.7

2.1

2.8

1.6

Sometimes

%

22.5

18.4

21.7

26.2

16.8

18.4

23.5

24.3

21.2

Rarely

%

34.9

34.4

36.9

36.4

35.9

36.9

38.3

37.1

35.5

Never

%

40.0

45.6

39.6

33.7

45.9

42.2

35.0

35.3

41.0

Refused

%

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

59.6

54.2

60.2

65.9

53.9

57.6

64.8

64.5

58.7

Sample size

no.

1 677

7 259

5 586

2 585

2 344

2 152

2 198

1 876

25 677

Index (d)

no.

1.87

1.75

1.85

1.99

1.73

1.81

1.95

1.95

1.84

2011-12

Always

%

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.8

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.7

0.4

Most of the time

%

1.5

1.2

1.7

2.0

0.8

0.4

2.1

2.4

1.5

Sometimes

%

30.0

16.6

21.8

23.5

14.9

19.4

26.6

24.2

22.8

Rarely

%

34.3

33.7

39.1

37.8

34.8

39.6

38.1

33.5

35.7

Never

%

33.5

48.0

37.0

35.6

48.8

39.8

33.0

38.9

39.4

Refused

%

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

Don't know

%

Total rarely or more often

%

66.1

51.7

62.8

64.1

51.2

60.2

67.0

60.8

60.4

Sample size

no.

1 691

7 277

5 575

2 545

2 327

2 160

2 190

1 864

25 629

Index (d)

no.

2.01

1.72

1.89

1.94

1.70

1.83

1.98

1.92

1.87

2012-13

Always

%

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.2

Most of the time

%

1.5

1.1

1.0

1.6

1.1

0.7

2.6

1.7

1.3

Sometimes

%

20.8

16.3

21.6

23.4

13.3

18.8

23.9

25.5

19.6

Rarely

%

32.6

33.6

37.5

37.8

31.0

38.8

38.0

34.0

34.5

Never

%

44.4

48.1

39.4

36.5

54.2

41.0

34.8

38.1

43.9

People who had driven in the previous 6 months more than 10 kilometres above the speed limit (a), (b), (c)

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.35

TABLE 6A.35

Table 6A.35

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

People who had driven in the previous 6 months more than 10 kilometres above the speed limit (a), (b), (c)

Refused

%

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

Don't know

%

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

Total rarely or more often

%

55.2

51.2

60.3

63.0

45.6

58.7

64.9

61.5

55.6

Sample size

no.

1 681

7 191

5 584

2 569

2 293

2 153

2 207

1 849

25 527

Index (d)

no.

1.80

1.71

1.85

1.91

1.62

1.80

1.95

1.92

1.79

2013-14

Always

%

1.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

Most of the time

%

1.5

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.6

0.8

2.0

2.1

1.2

Sometimes

%

19.0

16.0

20.8

20.8

14.6

17.1

23.1

20.4

18.5

Rarely

%

35.1

32.1

34.5

37.8

30.3

37.8

37.7

39.2

34.3

Never

%

42.6

50.2

43.2

39.8

54.2

44.0

36.7

37.4

45.0

Refused

%

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

Don't know

%

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Total rarely or more often

%

56.7

49.4

56.6

59.9

45.6

55.7

62.9

62.0

54.5

Sample size

no.

1 683

7 232

5 438

2 564

2 268

2 121

2 198

1 843

25 347

Index (d)

no.

1.83

1.68

1.80

1.84

1.62

1.75

1.91

1.88

1.77

2014-15

Always

%

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

Most of the time

%

1.4

0.4

1.3

1.4

0.4

0.8

2.2

1.3

1.1

Sometimes

%

19.6

14.9

18.7

21.2

12.8

19.8

24.6

23.1

18.0

Rarely

%

36.3

34.3

36.1

36.2

35.0

35.6

38.6

39.2

35.7

Never

%

41.7

50.2

42.7

40.4

51.4

43.3

34.2

36.0

44.4

Refused

%

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Don't know

%

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

Total rarely or more often

%

57.5

49.7

56.8

59.2

48.2

56.4

65.6

63.7

55.1

Sample size

no.

1 684

7 197

5 358

2 517

2 234

2 142

2 173

1 845

25 150

Index (d)

no.

1.81

1.66

1.80

1.85

1.62

1.79

1.95

1.90

1.76

2015-16

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.35

TABLE 6A.35

Table 6A.35

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

People who had driven in the previous 6 months more than 10 kilometres above the speed limit (a), (b), (c)

Always

%

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.3

Most of the time

%

0.7

0.8

1.1

1.7

0.3

1.8

1.6

3.0

0.9

Sometimes

%

20.6

14.4

20.1

21.3

15.7

16.3

20.9

23.1

18.6

Rarely

%

39.6

36.0

38.8

40.8

35.2

40.2

43.0

40.3

38.4

Never

%

38.7

48.0

39.4

35.7

48.2

40.6

33.9

32.7

41.4

Refused

%

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.6

0.2

Don't know

%

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.2

Total rarely or more often

%

61.2

51.5

60.1

64.0

51.4

58.7

65.8

66.6

58.2

Sample size

no.

1 705

7 271

5 424

2 553

2 288

1 787

2 178

1 858

25 064

Index (d)

no.

1.84

1.69

1.83

1.90

1.69

1.80

1.91

1.97

1.80

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Source:

For the response categories in the table above, the scale is as follows:

Totals may not add up to 100 per cent as a result of rounding.

ANZPAA (various years) National Survey of Community Satisfaction with Policing (unpublished).

Survey results are subject to sampling error. Refer to the Statistical context section in Chapter 2 for information to assist in the interpretation of these results.

A summation index method based on an interval scale aggregates survey responses to provide a single measure of the general (or 'average') level of perception.

For2010-11to2014-15,sampledatahavebeenweightedbyfactorssuchasageandgendertoinferresultsforthetotalpopulationaged15yearsoroverineachState and Territory. In October 2015, the qualifying age to participate in the survey was changed to 18 years and over.

Always = 5; most of the time = 4; sometimes = 3; rarely = 2; and never = 1.

– Nil or rounded to zero.

Eachresponsecategoryinthescaleisallocatedanumericvalue.Thenumberofresponsesforthecategoryismultipliedbythevaluetogiveatotalscoreforthecategory. The total scores for each category are summed and divided by the total number of responses to derive the summation index.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 3 of TABLE 6A.35

TABLE 6A.36

Table 6A.36

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Total fatalities

2006-07

442

337

366

223

104

56

17

51

1 596

2007-08

376

330

331

221

107

41

14

69

1 489

2008-09

432

301

351

195

128

49

13

55

1 524

2009-10

445

288

269

183

118

43

20

35

1 401

2010-11

355

294

251

199

111

31

10

43

1 294

2011-12

386

269

278

177

89

19

5

53

1 276

2012-13

341

255

297

180

100

33

11

46

1 263

2013-14

337

256

229

159

87

39

8

42

1 157

2014-15

305

255

234

180

112

34

10

41

1 171

2015-16

388

270

242

169

100

41

12

44

1 266

Per 100 000 registered vehicles

2006-07 (a)

10.1

8.8

12.1

13.3

9.0

14.7

7.4

43.2

10.8

2007-08 (a)

8.3

8.4

10.4

12.7

9.1

10.5

5.8

56.1

9.7

2008-09 (a)

9.5

7.5

10.7

10.7

10.6

12.2

5.3

42.7

9.7

2009-10 (a)

9.5

7.0

8.0

9.8

9.5

10.5

7.9

26.0

8.7

2010-11 (a)

7.4

7.0

7.4

10.4

8.8

7.4

3.9

31.4

7.9

2011-12 (b)

7.9

6.3

8.0

8.9

7.0

4.4

1.9

37.6

7.6

2012-13 (b)

6.8

5.8

8.2

8.8

7.7

7.6

4.0

31.0

7.4

2013-14 (b)

6.6

5.7

6.2

7.4

6.6

8.8

2.9

27.6

6.6

2014-15 (b)

5.8

5.6

6.2

8.2

8.3

7.5

3.5

26.4

6.5

2015-16 (b)

7.2

5.8

6.3

7.7

7.3

9.0

4.2

27.9

6.9

(a)

(b)

Source:

Road deaths

AustralianRoadDeathsDatabaseatwww.bitre.gov.au;ABS(variousyears),MotorVehicleCensus, Cat. no. 9309.0, Canberra.

Number of registered motor vehicles at 31 January.

Number of registered motor vehicles at 31 March.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.36

TABLE 6A.37

Table 6A.37

Unit NSW Vic (a) Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Number of traffic accident hospitalisations

2010-11 no. 12 332 9 966 7 065 4 608 2 822 617 938 592 38 940

2011-12 no. 13 245 10 496 7 532 4 588 2 841 603 810 550 40 665

2012-13 no. 13 234 8 491 8 547 4 719 3 025 690 814 651 40 171

2013-14 no. 13 243 9 542 8 755 4 481 2 962 734 801 705 41 223

2014-15 no. 13 221 10 004 9 143 4 442 2 847 868 859 785 42 169

Per 100 000 registered vehicles 2010-11 no. 258 237 208 241 224 147 362 432 238

2011-12 no. 272 245 216 232 223 140 303 390 243

2012-13 no. 266 194 237 230 233 158 297 438 234

2013-14 no. 260 213 236 209 223 166 287 463 234

2014-15 no. 252 219 242 203 211 193 303 506 234

(a)

Source :

This page has been changed since an earlier version of the Report. See errata at http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2017/police-services

AIHW(variousyears),AustralianHospitalStatistics(unpublished); ABS (variousyears) Motor

Vehicle Census, Cat. no. 9309.0, AusInfo, Canberra. Traffic accident hospitalisations

A change in Victoria’s emergency department admission policy between 2011–12 and 2012–13 is likely to have contributed to the large decrease in separations recorded for Victoria.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.37

TABLE 6A.38

Table 6A.38

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Non-Indigenous deaths in police custody and custody-related operations

2007-08

7

8

4

4

2

1

3

29

2008-09

6

3

7

7

4

1

1

29

2009-10

3

6

6

1

1

1

1

2

21

2010-11

5

1

6

1

2

2

1

18

2011-12

10

6

8

5

3

32

2012-13

5

2

3

3

13

2013-14

na

4

3

1

3

11

2014-15

na

na

3

2

1

6

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in police custody and custody-related operations

2007-08

1

2

2

5

2008-09

1

1

2

4

8

2009-10

2

2

2

6

2010-11

1

1

5

7

2011-12

1

2

3

2012-13

1

3

1

5

2013-14

na

1

1

2014-15

na

na

1

2

2

5

Total deaths in police custody and custody-related operations

2007-08

7

8

5

4

4

1

5

34

2008-09

6

3

8

8

6

1

5

37

2009-10

5

6

6

3

1

1

1

4

27

2010-11

6

1

7

6

2

2

1

25

2011-12

10

6

9

5

3

2

35

2012-13

5

2

4

6

1

18

2013-14

na

4

3

1

3

1

12

2014-15

na

na

4

4

1

2

11

Total number of deaths 2007-08 to 2014-15

Non-Indigenous

36

30

40

24

16

4

3

6

159

3

6

13

5

13

40

All people

39

30

46

37

21

4

3

19

199

(a)

(b)

– Nil or rounded to zero. na Not available.

Numberofdeathsinpolicecustodyandcustody-relatedoperations,2007-08 to 2014-15 (a), (b)

Datafor2013-14and2014-15areaccurateasof6thOctober2015.However,incidentsofdeathsoccurringinpolicecustodyduringtheseperiodshavenotbeenfinalisedbytheAICandaresubjecttochangependingqualityassuranceanddataverificationprocedureswhicharecurrentlybeingundertaken.

Deathsinpolicecustodyincludedeathsininstitutionalsettings(forexample,policestations/lockupsandpolicevehicles)orduringtransfertoorfromsuchaninstitution;ordeathsinhospitalsfollowingtransferfromaninstitution;andotherdeathsinpoliceoperationswhereofficersareinclosecontactwiththedeceased(forexample,mostraidsandshootingsbypolice).Deathsincustody-relatedoperationsincludesituationswhereofficersdidnothavesuchclosecontactwiththepersonastobeabletosignificantlyinfluenceorcontroltheperson’sbehaviour(forexample,mostsiegesandmostcaseswhereofficers were attempting to detain a person, such as pursuits).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.38

TABLE 6A.38

Table 6A.38

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Numberofdeathsinpolicecustodyandcustody-relatedoperations,2007-08 to 2014-15 (a), (b)

Source:

AustralianInstituteofCriminology(variousyears),AustralianDeathsinCustodyandCustody-related Police Operations (unpublished).

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 2 of TABLE 6A.38

TABLE 6A.39

Table 6A.39

NSW (b)

Vic (c)

Qld

WA (d)

SA

Tas

ACT (e)

NT (f)

2008-09

51

40

47

47

52

61

47

41

2009-10

57

39

47

47

52

58

42

42

2010-11

na

34

44

49

51

60

38

49

2011-12

na

31

39

50

47

61

40

35

2012-13

na

28

36

48

49

60

38

28

2013-14

na

26

35

47

53

58

40

39

2014-15

na

22

37

48

46

61

39

37

2015-16

na

19

36

49

52

63

53

36

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Source:

State and Territory governments (unpublished).

Juvenile diversions as a proportion of offenders (per cent) (a)

HistoricaldataforVictoriadifferfrompreviousReportsasdataarenowcompiledbytheCrimeStatistics Agency Victoria.

WAjuvenilediversionsincludeformalcautions,DrugDiversion/CannabisInterventionRequirementand referrals to Juvenile Justice Teams. Data for 2012-13 to 2014-15 have been revised.

Juvenilediversionisdefinedasthenumberofjuvenileswhowouldotherwisebeproceededagainst(thatis,takentocourt)butwhoaredivertedbypoliceasaproportionofalljuvenileoffendersformallydealtwithbypolice.Thetermdivertedincludesdiversionsofoffendersawayfromthecourtsbywayof:communityconference,diversionaryconference,formalcautioningbypolice,familyconferencesandotherdiversionaryprograms(forexample,todrugassessment/treatment).Offenderswhowouldnotnormallybesenttocourtfortheoffencedetectedandaretreatedbypolicein a less formal manner (for example, issued warnings or infringement notices) are excluded.

NSW is unable to provide juvenile diversion data under the Young Offenders Act.

IntheACT,theproportionofjuvenilediversionshasbeencalculatedontotalrecordedpolicecontactswithjuvenilescomprisingjuvenilecautions,referralstodiversionaryconferencing,juvenilestaken into protective custody and charges pertaining to juveniles.

TheNThadanoverallincreaseinapprehensionsin2013-14.Anewdatamanagementsystemintroducedin2013-14includesthoseconferenced,laterfailedandthenreferredtocourt.Thisdatawas previously unavailable.

na Not available.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.39

TABLE 6A.40

Table 6A.40

Courts adjudicated defendants who submitted a guilty plea or were found guilty (a)

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust

Magistrates courts (2009-10)

Resulting in a guilty finding

%

94.8

90.3

99.2

99.2

99.5

87.3

97.0

97.4

96.3

Total adjudicated defendants

no.

142 600

85 904

157 985

94 358

35 514

16 568

3 358

9 364

545 661

Total proven guilty

no.

135 140

77 578

156 766

93 604

35 338

14 464

3 258

9 120

525 277

Magistrates courts (2010-11)

Resulting in a guilty finding

%

94.6

95.5

99.1

99.1

99.3

84.0

97.4

97.4

96.8

Total adjudicated defendants

no.

131 705

67 787

138 716

81 849

31 986

16 816

3 102

9 596

481 556

Total proven guilty

no.

124 632

64 740

137 523

81 120

31 776

14 124

3 022

9 345

466 279

Magistrates courts (2011-12)

Resulting in a guilty finding

%

94.2

94.8

99.3

99.2

99.4

86.7

96.8

95.4

96.7

Total adjudicated defendants

no.

120 429

77 455

135 558

74 176

31 640

15 390

3 015

9 407

467 069

Total proven guilty

no.

113 456

73 409

134 545

73 618

31 449

13 339

2 920

8 973

451 711

Magistrates courts (2012-13)

Resulting in a guilty finding

%

94.6

97.2

99.3

99.3

99.4

87.8

96.4

96.6

97.4

Total adjudicated defendants

no.

113 913

80 236

138 575

71 184

32 817

12 859

3 067

10 545

463 197

Total proven guilty

no.

107 765

77 956

137 614

70 713

32 623

11 295

2 956

10 191

451 108

Magistrates courts (2013-14)

Resulting in a guilty finding

%

95.2

99.0

99.4

97.8

99.5

88.0

96.2

97.1

97.7

Total adjudicated defendants

no.

117 205

85 995

148 835

70 776

33 191

11 248

3 812

10 577

481 633

Total proven guilty

no.

111 598

85 097

147 902

69 212

33 026

9 893

3 666

10 272

470 665

Magistrates courts (2014-15)

Resulting in a guilty finding

%

95.1

99.1

99.3

99.3

99.5

84.6

96.9

97.0

97.8

Total adjudicated defendants

no.

120 438

89 225

146 992

76 257

29 225

11 821

3 398

10 692

488 054

Total proven guilty

no.

114 535

88 378

145 984

75 744

29 065

10 004

3 291

10 367

477 368

(a)

Source:

A defendant can be either a person or organisation against whom one or more criminal charges have been laid.

ABS (2016) Criminal Courts, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4513.0, State and territory data cubes.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.40

TABLE 6A.41

Table 6A.41

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA (b)

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

2011-12

%

0.30

0.38

0.05

1.79

1.88

0.01

1.25

0.54

2012-13

%

0.23

0.19

0.04

1.56

2.28

0.02

1.16

0.22

2013-14

%

0.20

0.14

0.01

1.57

1.76

1.06

0.92

2014-15

%

0.15

0.11

0.01

1.40

1.20

0.02

1.50

0.28

2015-16

%

0.13

na

0.01

1.32

0.80

1.80

0.37

(a)

(b)

Source:

State and Territory governments (unpublished).

Prosecutions where costs were awarded against the police (a)

The data are not comparable across jurisdictions because the process by which costs are awarded differs between jurisdictions.

– Nil or rounded to zero. na Not available.

Data for 2011-12 to 2014-15 have been revised due to methodological changes.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

POLICE

SERVICES

PAGE 1 of TABLE 6A.41

COURTS 7.1

7 Courts

CONTENTS

7.1 Profile of court services 7.2

7.2 Framework of performance indicators 7.16

7.3 Key performance indicator results 7.17

7.4 Definitions of key terms 7.42

7.5 References 7.45

Attachment tables Attachment tables are identified in references throughout this chapter by a ‘7A’ prefix (for example, table 7A.1) and are available from the website www.pc.gov.au/rogs/2017.

This chapter focuses primarily on administrative support functions for the courts, not on the judicial decisions made in the courts. The primary support functions of court administration services are to:

manage court facilities and staff, including buildings, security and ancillary services such as registries, libraries and transcription services

provide case management services, including client information, scheduling and case flow management

enforce court orders through the sheriff’s department or a similar mechanism.

This chapter covers the State and Territory supreme, district/county and magistrates’ (including children’s) courts, coroners’ courts and probate registries. It also covers the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of WA and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (previously the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia).

The chapter does not include information on the High Court of Australia, and excludes tribunals and specialist jurisdiction courts (for example, Indigenous courts, circle sentencing courts, drug courts and electronic infringement and enforcement systems) to improve national comparability in reporting.

All abbreviations used in this Report are available in a complete list in volume A: Approach to performance reporting.

7.2 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

7.1 Profile of court services

Roles and responsibilities

State and Territory court levels

In this chapter, the term ‘jurisdiction’ can refer to not only individual Australian states and territories, but also to the roles and responsibilities of different courts. There is a hierarchy of courts within each State and Territory. Supreme courts hear disputes of greater seriousness than those heard in the other courts. Supreme courts also develop the law and operate as courts of judicial review or appeal. For the majority of states and territories, the hierarchy of courts is as outlined below (although Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not have a district/county court):

supreme courts

district/county courts

magistrates’ courts.

Within certain court levels, a number of specialist jurisdiction courts aim to improve the responsiveness of courts to the special needs of particular service users. Tribunals can also improve responsiveness and assist in alleviating the workload of courts -- the role of tribunals in the civil justice landscape has been increasing in both scope and number and consolidated civil tribunals now operate across states and territories, increasingly dealing with matters which were traditionally dealt with in civil courts.

Differences in State and Territory court levels mean that the allocation of cases to courts varies across states and territories (further information is contained in tables 7A.38-40). As a result, the seriousness and complexity of cases heard in a court level can also vary across states and territories - any comparison of performance needs to account for these factors.

State and Territory court levels — specific elements

This chapter reports data by court level for each State and Territory. In addition, the chapter separates out certain data items from each court level to improve the comparability and understanding of the data presented. In particular instances, the data sets from the following areas are reported separately from their court level:

probate registries (separate from the supreme courts level)

children’s courts (separate from the magistrates’ courts level)

coroners’ courts (separate from the magistrates’ courts level).

More detailed information about these court levels is available in Table 7A.41.

COURTS 7.3

Australian court levels — specific elements

Australian courts comprise the following courts, in order of hierarchy:

the High Court of Australia

the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia

the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

Data for the High Court are not published in this Report.

Detailed information about the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Courts and the Federal Circuit Court and the relationships between them are available in Table 7A.42.

Administrative structures

Most courts use similar infrastructure (such as court buildings and facilities) for the civil and criminal jurisdictions. However, separate information systems and case flow management practices have been established for civil and criminal case types. Therefore the criminal and civil jurisdictions are reported separately where possible.

The allocation of responsibilities between court administration and other elements of the system (including the judiciary) varies across the Australian, State and Territory legal systems.

On 1 July 2014 Court Services Victoria (CSV), established under the Court Services Victoria Act 2014, commenced operations as an independent statutory body to provide administrative services and facilities to support Victoria’s courts, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and the Judicial College of Victoria (College). In all other States and Territories the administrative functions are located within government departments/agencies.

7.4 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Figure 7.1 Major relationships of courts in Australiaa, b

a In some jurisdictions, appeals from lower courts or district/county courts may go directly to the full court or court of appeal at the supreme/federal level; appeals from the Federal Circuit Court can also be heard by a single judge exercising the Federal/Family Courts’ appellate jurisdiction. b Appeals from federal, State and Territory tribunals may go to any higher court in their jurisdiction.

Recurrent expenditure less income

A number of factors affect court-related expenditure and income, including the volume and type of work undertaken. In some jurisdictions, court fees (which are part of income) are set by government and not by court administrators. Some states and territories apportion (or estimate), while others directly allocate expenditure (and income) between the criminal and civil jurisdictions of their courts. Comparison of court expenditure across states and territories should take into account the difficulty in apportioning income and expenditure

High Court of AustraliaFull court/court of appeal of supreme courtsFull Court of Federal CourtFull Court of Family CourtFederal CourtTerritory supreme courtsState supreme courtsFamily Court of Australia (except WA)Family Court of WAState district/county courts Federal Circuit Court of AustraliaTerritory magistrates' courts (including coroners' courts and children's courts)State magistrates' courts (may exercise federal family laws)aTerritory tribunalsbFederal tribunalsbState tribunalsbElectronic infringement and enforcement systemsCoroners' courts (some independent)All other StatesHigher courtsLower courts Territory Children's courtsFederal Indicates a separation between State and Territory, or court jurisdiction. Indicates the flow of cases on appeal. The Review covers the administration of these courts.textState The Review covers the administration of these courts.text

COURTS 7.5

between civil and criminal jurisdictions within court levels. Further details are contained in tables 7A.14 and 7A.15.

Recurrent expenditure provides an estimate of annual service costs. Recurrent expenditure on court administration comprises costs associated with the judiciary, court and probate registries, sheriff and bailiff’s offices, court accommodation and other overheads. The expenditure components include salary and non-salary expenditure, court administration agency and umbrella department expenditure, and contract expenditure. Total recurrent expenditure by Australian, State and Territory court authorities covered in this Report was almost $1.74 billion in 2015-16 (table 7.1).

Court income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue, probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines). Total income for the Australian, State and Territory courts covered in this Report was $361.6 million in 2015-16 (table 7A.13). Nationally, the civil jurisdiction of the courts accounted for the vast majority of all income received.

Total recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines), for the Australian, State and Territory courts covered in this Report was just under $1.38 billion in 2015-16 (table 7.1). Expenditure exceeds income in all court jurisdictions except for probate registries in the supreme courts. Expenditure is relatively low on probate matters, as these are limited to uncontested matters that are dealt with by probate registrars (or other registry staff). Where a probate matter is contested, it is reported as part of supreme court data in the civil jurisdiction. Historical data are reported in tables 7A.14 and 7A.15.

7.6 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.1 Courts’ recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines), 2015-16 ($ million)a, b, c

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Courts’ recurrent expenditure

Civil

155.7

152.7

60.0

70.6

30.4

7.3

13.0

10.9

103.8

604.4

Criminal

223.8

207.8

154.7

128.0

73.8

17.6

19.2

28.6

..

853.5

Family

..

..

..

29.0

..

..

..

..

71.2

100.3

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

134.7

134.7

Coroners

5.8

12.8

10.3

6.2

3.5

1.2

1.0

1.0

..

41.7

Probate — Supreme

1.0

0.8

0.3

1.2

0.8

0.3

0.1

0.1

..

4.5

Total

386.2

374.0

225.4

235.1

108.5

26.4

33.3

40.5

309.7

1 739.0

Courts’ recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines)

Civil

87.5

108.3

39.8

50.4

18.9

5.7

9.8

9.9

86.0

416.4

Criminal

208.8

207.8

152.9

120.1

71.9

16.7

18.9

28.0

..

825.0

Family

..

..

..

22.9

..

..

..

..

63.2

86.1

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

67.2

67.2

Coroners

5.6

12.8

10.3

5.8

3.4

1.2

1.0

0.9

..

41.0

Probate — Supreme

-36.1

-5.9

-6.1

-1.0

-6.7

-1.2

-1.1

-0.2

..

-58.3

Total

265.9

323.0

196.8

198.1

87.6

22.4

28.6

38.7

216.4

1 377.4

a Totals may not sum as a result of rounding. b Payroll tax is excluded. c See tables 7A.11-16 for detailed footnotes and caveats for each jurisdiction. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.11–16.

Cost recovery and fee relief in the civil courts

Court fees have a range of functions, including recovering costs and sending appropriate price signals to potential litigants, with the intention of ensuring that parties consider all appropriate options to resolve disputes. Court fees, however, are only part of the broader legal costs faced by applicants. In its Access to Justice Arrangements report, the Productivity Commission has estimated that court fees comprise approximately one tenth of a party’s full legal costs (Productivity Commission 2014).

Court fees are mainly collected in civil courts and in some jurisdictions are set by government rather than court administrators. The level of cost recovery from the collection of civil court fees varies across court levels and across jurisdictions. Across states and territories, approximately a third of costs in 2015-16 were recovered through court fees in the District and Magistrates’ courts (table 7A.17). Cost recovery tends to be low in the children’s courts and in the Family Court of Australia — in these courts many applications do not attract a fee. Levels of cost recovery will have an impact on the net cost per case finalised in the civil courts.

COURTS 7.7

Most courts in Australia are able to waive or reduce court fees to ameliorate the impact on vulnerable or financially disadvantaged parties. Financial hardship is generally determined at the discretion of registrars or court officers. Fee waivers and reductions are classified as ‘fee relief’ (Productivity Commission 2014) and are subsidies which can allow individuals experiencing financial hardship to access the courts at reduced or no cost.

As well as fee relief, fee exemptions may also be available in some courts – this is usually where legislation exists to exempt particular categories of fees from being payable. Fee exemptions are more common in the Australian Government courts than State and Territory courts. In the Federal Court of Australia an individual is also entitled to apply for a general exemption from paying court fees where that person has been granted legal aid, holds a health care or pensioner concession card, is in prison, is younger than 18 years or is receiving a youth allowance.

Taken together, fee waivers, reductions and exemptions represent costs to the civil courts that are not recovered. Experimental data for 2015-16 (table 7.2) show that:

state and territory Supreme, District and Magistrates’ courts provided almost $2.8 million in fee relief

the Family Court of WA provided over $2.3 million in fee relief

the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Courts together provided over $18.1 million in fee relief

fee exemptions (where data were available) amounted to approximately $11.2 million.

In total, approximately $34.6 million of civil court fees were either waived, reduced or exempted during 2015-16 and therefore not recovered by courts. The fees paid by applicants are considerably lower than the actual costs of providing the service (table 7.2), influencing both cost recovery and net cost per case finalised.

7.8 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.2 Court fee relief (waivers and reductions), exemptions and cost recovery for civil courts, 2015-16 – experimental dataa

Expenditure $’000

Court fees collected $’000

Fee relief (waivers and reductions) $’000

Exemptions $’000

Cost recovery excl. fee relief and exemptions (%)

Cost recovery incl. fee relief and exemptions (%)

NSW

Supreme

63 221

26 614

440

1 019

42.1

44.4

District

36 599

12 576

97

179

34.4

35.1

Magistrates

48 850

24 255

57

28

49.7

49.8

VIC

Supreme

54 631

12 077

391

na

22.1

22.8

District

34 955

10 833

96

na

31.0

31.3

Magistrates

45 199

19 687

na

na

43.6

43.6

QLDb

Supreme

19 722

7 352

na

812

37.3

41.4

District

11 287

5 351

na

655

47.4

53.2

Magistrates

24 188

6 610

na

52

27.3

27.5

WA

Supreme

24 444

6 353

436

na

26.0

27.8

District

17 026

5 389

604

na

31.7

35.2

Magistrates

26 761

7 325

150

na

27.4

27.9

Family

29 042

5 855

2 378

48

20.2

28.5

SA

Supreme

11 094

3 640

119

225

32.8

35.9

District

8 174

1 879

43

162

23.0

25.5

Magistrates

9 936

3 097

15

401

31.2

35.4

TAS

Supreme

4 596

563

21

na

12.2

12.7

Magistrates

2 503

550

na

na

22.0

22.0

ACT

Supreme

5 605

1 745

292

na

31.1

36.3

Magistrates

6 345

727

20

na

11.5

11.8

NT

Supreme

4 608

378

11

60

8.2

9.7

Magistrates

5 915

339

3

na

5.7

5.8

Federal

103 833

15 766

2 022

1 775

15.2

18.8

Family

71 247

6 334

1 430

1 767

8.9

13.4

Federal Circuit

134 666

67 473

14 738

4 055

50.1

64.1

Total

804 448

252 769

23 363

11 238

31.4

35.7

a Enforcement, transcript, probate and mediation fees are excluded. b Queensland has no provision for waiving fees and is currently unable to provide data on fee reductions. na Not available.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished).

COURTS 7.9

Table 7.3 shows that the proportions of total payable civil court fees which were waived or reduced varied across jurisdictions. The proportions of fee waivers or reductions were highest in the Family Court of WA (28.9 per cent) followed by the Family Court of Australia (18.4 per cent) and the Federal Circuit Court (17.9 per cent).

Table 7.3 Proportion of total payable civil court fees which were waived or reduced, 2015-16 (per cent) – experimental dataa, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Supreme/Federal

1.6

3.1

na

6.4

3.2

3.6

14.3

2.7

11.4

District/County

0.8

0.9

na

10.1

2.2

..

..

..

..

Magistrates

0.2

na

na

2.0

0.5

na

2.7

0.9

..

Family

..

..

..

28.9

..

..

..

..

18.4

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

17.9

a Total payable civil court fees include court fees collected, waived or reduced. Excludes enforcement, transcript, probate and mediation fees. b Queensland has no provision for waiving fees and is currently unable to provide data on fee reductions. na Not available. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished).

Size and scope of court activity

Staffing

Descriptive information on the numbers of judicial officers and full time equivalent staff can be found in tables 7A.27 – 7A.30.

Lodgments

Lodgments are matters initiated in the court system. Box 7.1 explains how lodgment data are collected for this chapter.

Table 7.4 (criminal) and table 7.5 (civil) outline the number of lodgments in 2015-16, by court level, for the Australian courts and for each State and Territory.

7.10 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Box 7.1 Explanation of lodgment data used in this chapter Lodgments reflect community demand for court services. The different ways of counting a court’s workload reflect the variety of work undertaken within the court system. The units of measurement of workload (or counting units) used within this chapter are: criminal courts — lodgment counts are based on the number of defendants civil and family courts — lodgment counts are based on the number of cases (except in children’s courts where, if more than one child can be involved in an application, the counting unit is the number of children involved in the originating application) coroners’ courts — lodgment counts are based on the number of reported deaths (and, if applicable, reported fires). Unless otherwise noted, the following types of lodgment are excluded from the criminal and/or civil lodgment data reported in this chapter: any lodgment that does not have a defendant element (for example, applications for telephone taps) extraordinary driver’s licence applications bail procedures (including applications and review) directions warrants admissions matters (original applications to practise and mutual recognition matters) cross-claims secondary processes — for example, interlocutory matters, breaches of penalties (that is, bail, suspended sentences, probation) applications for default judgments (because the application is a secondary process).

Nationally, in the criminal jurisdiction, there were 843 795 lodgments registered in the supreme, district/county and magistrates’ courts in 2015-16 (table 7.4).

Table 7.4 Court lodgments — criminal, by court level, 2015-16 (‘000)a, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Total

Supreme

0.5

0.4

2.1

0.6

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.7

5.4

District/county

12.5

5.3

6.3

2.4

2.2

..

..

..

28.7

Magistrates’ (total)

197.4

184.6

231.4

98.6

56.2

18.8

5.8

16.9

809.7

Magistrates’ (only)

186.9

160.9

219.2

92.3

52.0

17.7

5.5

14.6

749.1

Children’s

10.5

23.7

12.2

6.3

4.2

1.1

0.3

2.3

60.6

All criminal courts

210.4

190.3

239.8

101.7

58.7

19.3

6.1

17.6

843.8

a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b See table 7A.1 for detailed footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.1.

COURTS 7.11

Nationally, 435 149 cases were lodged in civil jurisdiction courts (excluding family courts, the Federal Circuit Court, coroners’ and probate courts). An additional 74 072 probate matters were lodged in the supreme courts (table 7.5).

In the coroners’ courts, there were 23 515 reported deaths and fires. Reporting rates for deaths and fires reported to a coroner vary across jurisdictions as a result of different reporting requirements. Further information as well as a disaggregation of coroners’ courts data by reported deaths and fires is contained in table 7A.3.

Table 7.5 Court lodgments — civil, by court level, 2015-16 (‘000)a, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Supreme (excl. probate)/Federal

8.6

6.2

3.3

2.7

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.3

6.0

29.7

District/County

7.2

6.0

5.1

4.9

1.7

..

..

..

..

24.9

Magistrates’ (total)

125.1

94.9

61.6

54.5

27.4

6.4

3.7

6.8

..

380.6

Magistrates’ (only)

116.1

86.6

57.6

52.7

25.2

6.1

3.5

6.4

..

354.4

Children’s

8.9

8.3

4.0

1.8

2.2

0.3

0.2

0.4

..

26.1

All civil courts

140.9

107.2

70.0

62.1

30.4

7.3

4.3

7.1

6.0

435.1

Family

..

..

..

16.2

..

..

..

..

20.8

37.0

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

93.6

93.6

Coroners’

6.2

6.3

5.3

2.2

2.4

0.6

0.3

0.3

..

23.5

Probate — Supreme

26.6

20.7

10.1

7.2

6.0

2.4

0.9

0.2

..

74.1

a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b See table 7A.3 for detailed footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.3.

The vast majority of both criminal and civil matters in Australia in 2015-16 were lodged in magistrates’ courts (96 per cent in criminal courts, 89 per cent in civil courts, see tables 7A.1 and 7A.3).

The number of lodgments per 100 000 people can be used to assist in understanding the comparative workload of a court in relation to the population of the State or Territory. Tables 7A.4 (criminal) and 7A.5 (civil) provide data on lodgments per 100 000 people for each State and Territory.

Finalisations

Finalisations represent the completion of matters in the court system. Each lodgment can be finalised only once. Matters may be finalised by adjudication, transfer, or another non-adjudicated method (such as withdrawal of a matter by the prosecution or settlement by the parties involved).

7.12 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

For the purposes of this Report, civil non-appeal lodgments that have had no court action in the past 12 months are counted (deemed) as finalised. The rationale for this counting rule is to focus on those matters that are active and part of a workload that the courts can progress. Cases which are deemed finalised reduce the pending count and increase the finalisation count in this Report, although they may remain as pending in the jurisdictional court. A case which is deemed finalised is considered closed — in the event that it becomes active again in the court after 12 months it is not counted again in this Report.

Tables 7.6 (criminal) and 7.7 (civil) outline the number of finalisations in 2015-16, by court level, for the Australian courts and each State and Territory. Lodgments will not equal finalisations in any given year because not all matters lodged in one year will be finalised in the same year.

In 2015-16, there were 873 888 criminal finalisations in the supreme, district/county and magistrates’ courts (table 7.6) and 444 249 civil finalisations in these courts (table 7.7). The number of finalisations per 100 000 people is available in tables 7A.9 and 7A.10.

Table 7.6 Court finalisations — criminal, 2015-16 (‘000)a, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Total

Supreme

0.4

0.4

1.9

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.6

5.1

District/County

12.0

5.2

6.0

2.1

2.2

..

..

..

27.5

Magistrates’ (total)

192.3

225.7

229.2

100.1

53.0

18.1

5.7

17.3

841.3

Magistrates’ (only)

182.0

200.0

215.7

94.0

48.9

16.9

5.4

15.1

777.9

Children’s

10.3

25.7

13.5

6.1

4.1

1.2

0.3

2.2

63.4

All criminal courts

204.8

231.3

237.1

102.8

55.5

18.5

5.9

17.9

873.9

a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b See table 7A.6 for detailed footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.6.

COURTS 7.13

Table 7.7 Court finalisations — civil, 2015-16 (‘000)a, b

NSW

Vic

Qldb

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Supremec/Federal

9.0

7.2

3.4

2.6

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.2

5.9

31.0

District/County

7.9

6.8

5.2

5.0

1.8

..

..

..

..

26.7

Magistrates’ (total)

132.3

98.3

63.2

53.0

28.2

6.7

3.8

6.9

..

392.4

Magistrates’ (only)

124.0

90.5

59.3

51.2

26.0

6.3

3.7

6.5

..

367.5

Children’s

8.3

7.8

3.9

1.8

2.2

0.3

0.2

0.4

..

24.9

All civil courts

149.1

112.3

71.9

60.5

31.2

7.5

4.5

7.2

5.9

450.1

Family

..

..

..

15.8

..

..

..

..

20.6

36.3

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

90.3

90.3

Coroners’

6.2

6.6

5.3

2.0

2.2

0.5

0.3

0.3

..

23.4

a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b See table 7A.8 for detailed footnotes and caveats. c Supreme courts data exclude probate cases. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.8.

Lodgments and finalisations in criminal courts – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (experimental data)

The proportions of lodgments and finalisations involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants are presented in this report for the first time. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status is based on self-identification by the individual who comes into contact with police. This information is then transferred from police systems to the courts when the defendant’s matter is lodged in the courts. Experimental data are presented for four jurisdictions only (Qld, WA, SA and NT) – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status data are either not available or not currently considered to be of sufficient quality in the other criminal jurisdictions to publish.

Tables 7.8 and 7.9 show the proportions of all criminal non-appeal matters lodged and finalised in the Supreme, District, Magistrates’ and Children’s courts which involved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants.

7.14 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.8 Proportion of non-appeal criminal court lodgments involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants, 2015-16 (per cent) – experimental dataa

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Total

Supreme

na

na

5.5

29.0

18.3

na

na

69.8

na

District/county

na

na

17.4

25.4

7.5

..

..

..

na

Magistrates (total)

na

na

18.0

29.7

12.4

na

na

76.7

na

Magistrates (only)

na

na

16.5

27.6

10.8

na

na

74.6

na

Children’s

na

na

45.2

59.7

32.9

na

na

90.6

na

All criminal courts

na

na

17.9

29.6

12.3

na

na

76.4

na

a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. na Not available .. Not applicable.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished).

Table 7.9 Proportion of non-appeal criminal court finalisations involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants, 2015-16 (per cent) – experimental dataa

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Total

Supreme

na

na

5.6

27.8

14.5

na

na

67.0

na

District/county

na

na

17.4

23.8

7.9

..

..

..

na

Magistrates (total)

na

na

18.7

30.5

13.1

na

na

75.6

na

Magistrates (only)

na

na

17.0

28.6

11.3

na

na

73.5

na

Children’s

na

na

46.2

59.5

34.6

na

na

89.5

na

All criminal courts

na

na

18.6

30.3

12.9

na

na

75.3

na

a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. na Not available .. Not applicable.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished).

Cases finalised after a trial has commenced

Most cases which are finalised in the criminal and civil courts do not proceed to trial. Generally, cases which proceed to trial are more time-consuming and resource intensive. The percentages of all finalised non-appeal cases which were finalised following the commencement of a trial in 2015-16 varied from 0.3 to 60.7 per cent in the criminal courts and from 0.3 to 24.0 per cent in the civil courts (table 7A.36).

COURTS 7.15

Box 7.2 Finalised applications for domestic and family violence protection orders — experimental data While ‘domestic’ and ‘family’ violence are distinct concepts, the former referring to violence against an intimate partner, the latter referring to broader family and kinship relationships, the terms are often used interchangeably and their definitions generally incorporate both domestic and family-related violence. Domestic and family violence matters are generally dealt with at the Magistrates’ court level. Offences relating to domestic and family violence (including breaches of violence and protection orders) are dealt with in state and territory criminal courts while applications for protection orders relating to domestic and family violence are dealt with in state and territory civil courts. Protection orders are the most broadly used justice response mechanisms for addressing the safety of women and children exposed to domestic violence (Taylor et al 2015). Table 7.10 shows the percentage of all civil cases finalised in the Magistrates’ courts in 2015—2016 which involved finalised applications for domestic and family violence-related protection orders (excluding interim orders and applications for extension, revocation or variation). Averaged across all Magistrates’ courts approximately 31 per cent of all finalised civil cases involved applications for domestic and family violence-related protection orders. Table 7.10 Percentage of all finalised civil cases in the Magistrates’ courts involving a finalised application for a domestic or family violence related protection order, 2015-16a, b — experimental data NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total All civil cases finalised (‘000) 124.0 90.5 59.3 51.2 26.0 6.3 3.7 6.5 367.5 All finalised cases involving an application for a domestic or family violence related protection order (‘000) 31.1 34.3 31.8 8.1 4.6 0.7 0.4 3.9 115.0 Percentage of all finalised cases involving an application for a domestic or family violence-related protection order 25.1 37.9 53.6 15.9 17.6 11.1 10.9 60.1 31.3

a Includes originating applications only. b In Tasmania, police can issue Police Family Violence Orders (PFVOs) which are more numerous than court-issued orders. PFVOs are excluded from this table. Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished). The Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Courts do not issue family violence protection orders. Rather, the Family Court must consider and take action on notices of risk of abuse or family violence when considering final order cases. Following a broadening of the definition of family violence in the Family Law Act in 2012, the number of notices being filed in the Family Court has increased. In 2015-16 the proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence was filed was 16 per cent (Family Court of Australia Annual Report, 2015-16).

7.16 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

7.2 Framework of performance indicators

The framework of performance indicators for courts is based on common objectives for courts (box 7.3). The emphasis placed on each objective may vary across states and territories and court levels.

Box 7.3 Objectives for courts Courts aim to safeguard and maintain the rule of law and ensure equal justice for all. Court services aim to support the courts by enabling them to: be open, accessible and affordable process matters in an expeditious and timely manner encourage public confidence and trust in the courts. Governments aim for court services to meet these objectives in an equitable and efficient manner.

The performance indicator framework provides information on equity, efficiency and effectiveness, and distinguishes the outputs and outcomes of courts (figure 7.2). The performance indicator framework shows which data are complete and comparable in the 2017 Report. For data that are not considered directly comparable, text includes relevant caveats and supporting commentary. Chapter 1 discusses data comparability, data completeness and information on data quality from a Report-wide perspective.

Improvements to performance reporting for Courts are ongoing and will include identifying indicators to fill gaps in reporting against key objectives, improving the comparability and completeness of data and reviewing proxy indicators to see if more direct measures can be developed.

COURTS 7.17

Figure 7.2 Courts performance indicator framework

The Steering Committee recognises that this courts data collection (unlike some other data collections) does not have an intermediary data collector or validator akin to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or the ABS. The reporting process in this chapter is one of continual improvement and refinement, with the long term aim of developing a national data collection that covers court activities across the Australian, State and Territory jurisdictions in a timely and comparable way.

In addition to section 7.1, the Report’s Statistical context chapter (chapter 2) contains data that may assist in interpreting the performance indicators presented in this chapter.

7.3 Key performance indicator results

Different delivery contexts, locations, caseloads, case mixes and government policies can affect the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of court services. The allocation of cases to different courts also differs across states and territories and Australian courts.

The courts data collection is based on national counting rules, so data presented in this chapter may differ from data published by individual jurisdictions in their annual reports. There also can be differences from the data reported in the ABS Criminal Courts

OutputsEquityTo be determinedJudicial officersFees paid by applicantsOutcomesKey to indicators*TextTextMost recent data for all measures are either not comparable and/or not completeTextNo data reported and/or no measures yet developed Most recent data for all measures are comparable and completeMost recent data for at least one measure are comparable and completeText* A description of the comparability and completeness of each measure is provided in indicator interpretation boxes within the chapterAttendanceBacklogQualityClearanceFTE staff per finalisationJudicial officers per finalisationCost per finalisationObjectivesEffectivenessPERFORMANCEAccessTo be determinedAffordabilityTimeliness and delayAccessInputs per unit of outputEfficiency

7.18 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

publication (ABS 2016) — the ABS publication provides information about judicial decisions relating to finalised and adjudicated defendants.

Outputs

Outputs are the services delivered while outcomes are the impact of these services on the status of an individual or group (see chapter 1). Output information is also critical for equitable, efficient and effective management of government services.

Equity

Equity of access to court services is an area for development in future reports (box 7.4).

Box 7.4 Equity — access An indicator of governments’ objective to provide court services in an equitable manner has yet to be developed.

Effectiveness

Quality

‘Quality’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of encouraging public confidence and trust in the courts. The Steering Committee has identified quality as an important measure of court performance (box 7.5). A suitable indicator of quality for court services has not yet been identified for inclusion in the performance indicator framework and is an area for development in future reports.

Box 7.5 Indicators of quality An indicator of quality for court services has yet to be developed.

Access — judicial officers

‘Judicial officers’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of providing services that enable courts to be open, accessible and affordable. This indicator relates access to the number of judicial officers available to deal with cases in relation to population size (box 7.6).

COURTS 7.19

Box 7.6 Judicial officers ‘Judicial officers’ is defined as the number of full time equivalent judicial officers divided by the relevant resident population, multiplied by 100 000. Judicial officers are officers who can make enforceable orders of the court. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of a judicial officer includes: judges; associate judges; magistrates; masters; coroners; judicial registrars; all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence, make enforceable orders of the court. Where judicial officers have both judicial and non-judicial work, this refers to the proportion of time allocated to judicial work. A high or increasing proportion of judicial officers in the population indicates potentially greater access to the judicial system. Factors such as geographical dispersion, judicial workload and population density are also important to consider when comparing figures concerning judicial officers. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Table 7.11 shows the number of judicial officers per 100 000 people.

Table 7.11 Judicial officers, full time equivalent, per 100 000 people, by court level, 2015-16a, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Population (‘000)

7 670.7

5 996.4

4 808.8

2 603.9

1 702.8

517.4

393.0

244.0

23 940.3

Judicial officers per 100 000 people

Supreme/Federal

0.7

1.0

0.5

0.8

0.8

1.4

1.5

3.4

0.2

1.0

District/County

0.9

1.1

0.7

1.1

1.1

..

..

..

..

0.9

Magistrates

1.4

1.8

1.7

1.8

2.0

2.0

1.9

5.7

..

1.7

Children’s

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.7

..

0.2

Family

..

..

..

0.6

..

..

..

..

0.1

0.2

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

0.3

0.3

Coroners

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.0

0.6

..

0.1

Total

3.4

4.2

3.2

4.6

4.3

4.2

3.7

10.5

0.6

4.5

a Population data for the financial year is the midpoint (31 December) estimate. b See box 7.6 and table 7A.27 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.27.

Access — backlog

‘Backlog’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of processing matters in an expeditious and timely manner (box 7.7).

7.20 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Box 7.7 Backlog ‘Backlog’ is a measure of the age of a court’s pending caseload against nominated time benchmarks. It is defined as the number of cases in the nominated age category as a percentage of the total pending caseload. The following national benchmarks have been set. For the Federal Circuit Court, magistrates’ and children’s courts: no more than 10 per cent of lodgments pending completion are to be more than 6 months old no lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old. For Supreme courts, the Federal Court, district/county, family and coroners’ courts and all appeals: no more than 10 per cent of lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old no lodgments pending completion are to be more than 24 months old. Performance relative to the benchmarks indicates effective management of caseloads and timely accessibility of court services. Time taken to process cases is not necessarily due to court delay. Some delays are caused by factors other than those related to the workload of the court (for example, a witness being unavailable). Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Court backlog and timeliness of case processing can be affected by a number of factors. In addition to changes in lodgment and finalisation numbers, factors can include:

Criminal courts

the complexity of cases, which may vary across court levels and across jurisdictions

whether cases have become inactive or remain an active part of the court’s workload (defendants who fail to appear when required and have warrants issued are excluded from the pending caseload count as their case is considered inactive until the defendant is apprehended)

where cases require finalisation in another court level

matters on Interlocutory Appeal

cases delayed by related cases or co-accused

family law matters determined ‘on-hold’.

COURTS 7.21

Civil courts

different case flow management practices across court levels and across jurisdictions

a single case may involve several related applications or issues that require judgments and decisions by the court

matters may be adjourned at the instigation of, and by the consent of, the parties — such consent arrangements are outside the control of the court

the court may employ case management or other dispute resolution processes (for example, mediation) that are alternatives to formal adjudication

Case processing timeliness in criminal and civil cases can also be affected by orders or programs that are initiated following a court lodgment, but prior to a court finalisation. These programs or orders are commonly referred to as diversion programs and are outlined in more detail in box 7.8.

7.22 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Box 7.8 Diversion programs and the impact on timeliness Courts offer diversion programs to improve the quality of outcomes within the justice system and for the community generally. Diversion programs can involve processes that are outside the control of court administration. The period between lodgment and finalisation can be affected by those processes. Criminal justice system Diversion programs are usually focussed on rehabilitation for the defendant and/or restoration for the victim. They are most often (but not exclusively) used in magistrates’ courts, and are usually voluntary. Examples include: referral of defendants to drug programs (from counselling through to treatment programs) — available in all states and territories referral of defendants to therapeutic support programs while on bail and pre-plea (Courts Integrated Support Program and CREDIT/Bail in Victoria) referral of defendants to a mental health court (Victoria, Queensland, SA and Tasmania) or for various mental health assessments (NSW, WA and the ACT) referral of defendants to a family violence court (Victoria, WA and SA) for participation in targeted programs referral of defendants to an Indigenous court or Circle Sentencing program (NSW, Victoria, Queensland, WA, SA and the ACT). The processes listed above can range in completion times between one week and seven years. With some diversion programs, success will delay finalisation significantly. For example, some drug court programs can require compliance for 12 months or longer before the defendant is considered to have completed the program. Civil justice system Diversion programs can be a quicker and cheaper form of dispute resolution. Examples include: mediation — referrals can be made at any time during the proceedings. A court may require parties to complete a mediation program within a specified time, or can consider the timeframe to be ‘open-ended’. Completion time can also be affected by the complexity of the dispute and the number of parties involved, and can therefore vary significantly from case to case. Usually all parties consent to use mediation, but in some states parties can be ordered to mediate their dispute arbitration — referrals are usually made early in the proceedings and the court supervises the process. The hearing is shorter than a court hearing. Participation can be voluntary or by order reference to a referee — technical issues arising in proceedings may be referred to suitably qualified experts (referees) for inquiry and report. The court supervises the process and may adopt, vary or reject the report. Success at mediation (settlement of the case) or at arbitration (acceptance of the arbitrator’s award) generally finalises cases earlier than if finalised by trial and judgment. Where the mediation or arbitration is unsuccessful, the delaying effect on finalisation is highly variable.

Data on the backlog for criminal matters are contained in table 7.12. Historical data are available in table 7A.19.

COURTS 7.23

Table 7.12 Backlog — all criminal matters, at 30 June 2016a, b

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Higher — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

1 738

1 038

460

219

116

25

84

13

cases > 12 mths

%

1.6

4.0

16.5

18.7

7.8

8.0

25.0

30.8

cases > 24 mths

%

0.1

0.5

4.6

5.9

0.9

4.0

4.8

Higher — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

4 192

1 534

2 900

1 801

1 413

381

186

280

cases > 12 mths

%

24.3

17.5

13.3

6.8

25.5

28.9

23.1

6.4

cases > 24 mths

%

4.8

4.4

4.2

0.7

6.9

7.3

3.2

1.4

Supreme — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

194

151

225

219

116

25

84

13

cases > 12 mths

%

3.1

7.3

9.3

18.7

7.8

8.0

25.0

30.8

cases > 24 mths

%

0.7

5.9

0.9

4.0

4.8

Supreme — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

119

95

735

171

32

381

186

280

cases > 12 mths

%

31.9

35.8

12.0

11.1

12.5

28.9

23.1

6.4

cases > 24 mths

%

2.5

12.6

2.4

1.8

6.3

7.3

3.2

1.4

District/County — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

1 544

887

235

..

..

..

..

..

cases > 12 mths

%

1.4

3.5

23.4

..

..

..

..

..

cases > 24 mths

%

0.1

0.5

8.9

..

..

..

..

..

District/County — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

4 073

1 439

2 165

1 630

1 381

..

..

..

cases > 12 mths

%

24.0

16.3

13.8

6.4

25.9

..

..

..

cases > 24 mths

%

4.8

3.9

4.8

0.6

6.9

..

..

..

Magistrates’

Pending caseload

no.

41 096

44 254

46 174

14 576

18 438

7 426

1 936

2 651

cases > 6 mths

%

12.6

27.0

33.0

31.5

25.3

30.4

27.4

28.5

cases >12 mths

%

2.0

8.7

14.1

10.6

7.7

13.0

10.2

15.5

Children’s

Pending caseload

no.

2 789

3 593

2 472

1 105

1 151

354

77

695

cases > 6 mths

%

17.0

12.1

22.0

13.7

18.2

24.3

23.4

28.3

cases >12 mths

%

2.2

4.0

11.0

2.5

4.1

13.3

13.0

12.7

a Higher refers to supreme and district/county courts combined. b See box 7.7 and table 7A.19 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable. Nil or rounded to zero.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.19.

Backlog data for civil matters are contained in table 7.13. Historical data are available in table 7A.21.

7.24 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.13 Backlog — all civil matters, as at 30 June 2016a, b

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Higher — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

471

297

158

201

152

61

83

52

521

cases > 12 mths

%

11.7

10.8

17.7

18.4

17.8

19.7

47.0

1.9

5.0

cases > 24 mths

%

2.5

1.0

5.7

5.0

2.6

1.6

31.3

0.4

Higher (excl probate) — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

11 451

10 769

7 095

5 769

2 889

796

551

112

3 035

cases >12 mths

%

25.8

36.2

21.5

33.8

41.6

34.0

29.9

27.7

29.9

cases > 24 mths

%

8.5

11.9

5.2

13.2

19.8

9.2

13.1

8.9

18.5

Supreme/Federal — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

421

243

104

126

95

61

83

52

521

cases >12 mths

%

12.8

13.2

13.5

22.2

25.3

19.7

47.0

1.9

5.0

cases > 24 mths

%

2.9

1.2

3.8

4.0

3.2

1.6

31.3

0.4

Supreme (excl probate)/Federal — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

5 209

4 126

2 411

2 389

780

796

551

112

3 035

cases >12 mths

%

29.3

37.2

23.9

32.5

26.9

34.0

29.9

27.7

29.9

cases > 24 mths

%

13.1

10.6

7.6

13.8

11.7

9.2

13.1

8.9

18.5

District/county — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

50

54

54

75

57

..

..

..

..

cases >12 mths

%

2.0

25.9

12.0

5.3

..

..

..

..

cases >24 mths

%

9.3

6.7

1.8

..

..

..

..

District/county — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

6 242

6 643

4 684

3 380

2 109

..

..

..

..

cases >12 mths

%

23.0

35.5

20.3

34.7

47.0

..

..

..

..

cases > 24 mths

%

4.6

12.6

3.9

12.8

22.8

..

..

..

..

Magistrates’ (only)

Pending caseload

no.

43 510

8 336

22 666

20 016

13 982

3 557

603

1 957

..

cases > 6 mths

%

25.0

31.1

40.3

39.3

43.9

40.0

45.1

32.5

..

cases > 12 mths

%

1.0

21.1

9.4

7.5

12.2

11.5

14.8

7.5

..

Family — appeal

Pending caseload

no.

..

..

..

3

..

..

..

..

270

cases >12 mths

%

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

30.4

cases > 24 mths

%

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

9.6

Family — non-appeal

Pending caseload

no.

..

..

..

9 765

..

..

..

..

5 844

cases > 12 mths

%

..

..

..

29.7

..

..

..

..

28.0

cases > 24 mths

%

..

..

..

8.5

..

..

..

..

12.1

Federal Circuit

Pending caseload

no.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

42 724

cases > 6 mths

%

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

37.8

cases > 12 mths

%

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

17.7

Coroners’

Pending caseload

no.

2 487

3 526

2 127

2 178

2 050

555

169

304

..

cases > 12 mths

%

21.7

26.5

33.2

21.3

35.1

31.9

31.4

43.4

..

cases > 24 mths

%

8.6

10.1

13.6

6.7

11.2

8.1

17.8

31.3

..

a Higher refers to State and Territory supreme and district/county courts combined, and includes the Federal Court of Australia. b See box 7.7 and table 7A.21 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable. Nil or rounded to zero.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.21.

COURTS 7.25

Access — attendance

‘Attendance’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of processing matters in an expeditious and timely manner (box 7.9).

Box 7.9 Attendance ‘Attendance’ is defined as the average number of attendances recorded (no matter when the attendance occurred) for those cases that were finalised during the year. The number of attendances is the number of times that parties or their representatives are required to be present in court to be heard by a judicial officer or mediator/arbitrator where binding orders can be made. The number includes appointments that are adjourned or rescheduled. Fewer attendances may suggest a more effective process. However, this should be balanced against the likelihood that the number of attendances will increase if rehabilitation or diversionary programs are used, or if intensive case management is used. Both of these paths are believed to improve the quality of outcomes: rehabilitation and diversionary programs aim to provide therapeutic benefits for the offenders, and benefits of reduced recidivism for the community intensive case management is believed to maximise the prospects of settlement (and thereby reduce the litigant’s costs, the number of cases queuing for hearing, and the flow of work on to appellate courts); alternatively, it can narrow the issues for trial (thus shortening trial time and also reducing costs and the queuing time for other cases waiting for hearing). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can resolve some types of matters out of court and thereby reduce the need for judicial hearings. Accordingly, differences across jurisdictions in the availability and use of ADR can affect the comparability of the attendance indicator. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) within jurisdictions over time but are not comparable across jurisdictions incomplete for the current reporting period. Required 2015-16 data were not available for NSW for the Supreme court or Children’s civil court. Data were not provided for the Victorian Supreme court.

Attendance data can be difficult to collect. Due to system limitations, some jurisdictions supply data on listed hearings rather than actual attendances in court (see table 7A.22 for details).

Attendance indicator results for criminal proceedings are reported in table 7.14.

7.26 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.14 Attendance — criminal, 2015-16a

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Average attendances per finalisation

Supreme

na

na

3.9

3.2

3.7

5.4

7.9

6.9

District/County

3.1

4.8

4.8

3.8

6.1

..

..

..

Magistrates’

2.7

2.5

2.5

2.7

4.0

4.3

4.0

3.2

Children’s

3.6

2.1

2.7

3.8

4.3

5.2

5.4

4.8

a See box 7.9 and table 7A.22 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. na Not available. .. Not applicable.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.22.

Attendance indicator results for civil proceedings are reported in table 7.15.

Table 7.15 Attendance — civil, 2015-16a

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Average attendances per finalisation

Supreme (excl. probate)/Federal

na

na

1.3

2.1

3.9

1.9

5.0

5.2

2.9

District/county

3.4

0.7

0.4

1.1

3.9

..

..

..

..

Magistrates

1.0

1.2

1.0

0.8

1.3

1.2

1.8

1.1

..

Children’s

na

1.7

3.6

4.4

2.6

5.0

7.3

4.2

..

Family

..

..

..

1.8

..

..

..

..

2.1

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

1.9

Coroners’ courts

5.0

1.1

6.7

2.1

2.7

1.4

4.5

1.0

..

a See box 7.9 and table 7A.22 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. na Not available. .. Not applicable

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.22.

Access — clearance

‘Clearance’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of processing matters in an expeditious and timely manner (box 7.10).

COURTS 7.27

Box 7.10 Clearance ‘Clearance’ indicates whether a court’s pending caseload has increased or decreased over the measurement period, by comparing the volume of case finalisations and case lodgments during the reporting period. It is measured by dividing the number of finalisations in the reporting period by the number of lodgments in the same period. The result is multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage. The following can assist in interpretation of this indicator: a figure of 100 per cent indicates that, during the reporting period, the court finalised as many cases as were lodged, and the pending caseload should be similar to the pending caseload 12 months earlier a figure greater than 100 per cent indicates that, during the reporting period, the court finalised more cases than were lodged, and the pending caseload should have decreased a figure less than 100 per cent indicates that, during the reporting period, the court finalised fewer cases than were lodged, and the pending caseload should have increased. Lodgments are a reflection of demand for court services. Lodgments need not equal finalisations in any given year, because not all matters lodged in a given year will be finalised in the same year. Consequently, results for this indicator need to be interpreted within the context of changes in the volumes of lodgments, finalisations and pending caseloads over time. The clearance indicator can be affected by external factors (such as those causing changes in lodgment rates), as well as by changes in a court’s case management practices. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

Clearance indicator data in 2015-16 are presented in tables 7.16 (criminal) and 7.17 (civil). Where relevant, the clearance indicator data have been disaggregated between appeal and non-appeal matters. Table 7.18 contains clearance indicator results for all court matters combined (both criminal and civil), and combines appeal and non-appeal matters.

7.28 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.16 Clearance — all criminal matters, 2015-16a

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Supreme — appeal

Lodgments

‘000

0.36

0.28

0.41

0.31

0.26

0.03

0.10

0.02

Finalisations

‘000

0.34

0.30

0.44

0.29

0.28

0.03

0.09

0.01

Clearance rate

%

94.2

108.7

106.6

93.9

106.5

106.3

93.9

68.8

Supreme — non-appeal

Lodgments

‘000

0.11

0.08

1.71

0.33

0.06

0.45

0.18

0.73

Finalisations

‘000

0.09

0.11

1.48

0.31

0.08

0.44

0.17

0.61

Clearance rate

%

81.7

129.6

86.7

93.3

126.7

97.1

93.9

83.7

District/County — appeal

Lodgments

‘000

7.62

3.06

0.43

..

..

..

..

..

Finalisations

‘000

7.57

3.06

0.45

..

..

..

..

..

Clearance rate

%

99.3

100.2

103.5

..

..

..

..

..

District/County — non-appeal

Lodgments

‘000

4.87

2.23

5.88

2.45

2.17

..

..

..

Finalisations

‘000

4.47

2.18

5.54

2.07

2.19

..

..

..

Clearance rate

%

91.8

97.4

94.2

84.6

100.6

..

..

..

Magistrates’

Lodgments

‘000

186.91

160.94

219.22

92.25

52.00

17.66

5.50

14.60

Finalisations

‘000

182.01

199.96

215.75

93.96

48.91

16.90

5.35

15.09

Clearance rate

%

97.4

124.2

98.4

101.9

94.1

95.7

97.3

103.3

Children’s

Lodgments

‘000

10.51

23.69

12.19

6.35

4.16

1.11

0.27

2.29

Finalisations

‘000

10.31

25.72

13.47

6.15

4.09

1.15

0.30

2.19

Clearance rate

%

98.1

108.6

110.5

96.8

98.2

103.7

108.8

95.6

a See box 7.10 and table 7A.24 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.1, 7A.6 and 7A.24.

COURTS 7.29

Table 7.17 Clearance — all civil matters, 2015-16a

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Supreme/Federal — appeal

Lodgments

‘000

0.69

0.33

0.22

0.16

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.11

0.99

Finalisations

‘000

0.73

0.30

0.28

0.18

0.09

0.07

0.06

0.12

0.96

Clearance rate

%

105.8

91.6

127.0

112.7

87.3

90.2

88.7

106.5

96.4

Supreme (excl probate)/Federal — non-appeal

Lodgments

‘000

7.88

5.89

3.03

2.57

1.11

0.74

0.55

0.15

5.00

Finalisations

‘000

8.26

6.87

3.13

2.41

1.14

0.77

0.56

0.12

4.91

Clearance rate

%

104.8

116.7

103.5

94.0

102.4

103.6

102.2

78.8

98.3

District/County — appeal

Lodgments

‘000

0.08

0.06

0.08

0.11

0.11

..

..

..

..

Finalisations

‘000

0.12

0.04

0.08

0.11

0.10

..

..

..

..

Clearance rate

%

152.6

67.2

97.5

95.5

90.3

..

..

..

..

District/County — non-appeal

Lodgments

‘000

7.13

5.97

5.01

4.78

1.60

..

..

..

..

Finalisations

‘000

7.76

6.74

5.17

4.86

1.74

..

..

..

..

Clearance rate

%

108.9

113.0

103.2

101.7

108.9

..

..

..

..

Magistrates

Lodgments

‘000

116.15

86.61

57.65

52.70

25.24

6.11

3.52

6.45

..

Finalisations

‘000

123.96

90.50

59.34

51.19

25.98

6.35

3.65

6.55

..

Clearance rate

%

106.7

104.5

102.9

97.1

102.9

104.0

103.7

101.6

..

Children’s

Lodgments

‘000

8.94

8.29

3.98

1.81

2.20

0.34

0.16

0.40

..

Finalisations

‘000

8.30

7.85

3.91

1.77

2.17

0.34

0.18

0.40

..

Clearance rate

%

92.9

94.7

98.3

97.6

98.8

100.9

111.7

98.5

..

Family — appeal

Lodgments

‘000

..

..

..

0.004

..

..

..

..

0.37

Finalisations

‘000

..

..

..

0.004

..

..

..

..

0.35

Clearance rate

%

..

..

..

100.0

..

..

..

..

95.4

Family — non-appeal

Lodgments

‘000

..

..

..

16.24

..

..

..

..

20.42

Finalisations

‘000

..

..

..

15.77

..

..

..

..

20.20

Clearance rate

%

..

..

..

97.1

..

..

..

..

98.9

Federal Circuit

Lodgments

‘000

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

93.58

Finalisations

‘000

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

90.34

Clearance rate

%

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

96.5

Coroners’

Lodgments

‘000

6.15

6.31

5.29

2.21

2.43

0.57

0.29

0.27

..

Finalisations

‘000

6.17

6.60

5.31

2.05

2.18

0.49

0.25

0.31

..

Clearance rate

%

100.2

104.6

100.5

92.5

89.8

87.0

85.6

115.1

..

a See box 7.10 and table 7A.26 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.3, 7A.8 and 7A.26.

7.30 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Table 7.18 Clearance — all matters, 2015-16 (per cent)a

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Supreme/Federal

Criminal

91.3

113.4

90.5

93.6

110.2

97.7

93.9

83.4

..

Civil

104.9

115.3

105.1

95.1

101.2

102.3

100.8

90.6

98.0

Total

104.2

115.2

99.3

94.8

103.1

100.6

98.7

85.2

98.0

District/county

Criminal

96.4

99.0

94.8

84.6

100.6

..

..

..

..

Civil

109.4

112.6

103.1

101.5

107.7

..

..

..

..

Total

101.2

106.2

98.5

95.9

103.8

..

..

..

..

Magistrates’

Criminal

97.4

124.2

98.4

101.9

94.1

95.7

97.3

103.3

..

Civil

106.7

104.5

102.9

97.1

102.9

104.0

103.7

101.6

..

Total

101.0

117.3

99.4

100.1

97.0

97.8

99.8

102.8

..

Children’s

Criminal

98.1

108.6

110.5

96.8

98.2

103.7

108.8

95.6

..

Civil

92.9

94.7

98.3

97.6

98.8

100.9

111.7

98.5

..

Total

95.7

105.0

107.5

97.0

98.4

103.0

109.9

96.1

..

Family

..

..

..

97.1

..

..

..

..

98.9

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

96.5

Coroners’

100.2

104.6

100.5

92.5

89.8

87.0

85.6

115.1

..

a See box 7.10 and tables 7A.24 and 7A.26 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.1, 7A.3, 7A.6, 7A.8, 7A.24 and 7A.26.

Access — affordability — fees paid by applicants

‘Fees paid by applicants’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of enabling courts to be open, accessible and affordable (box 7.11).

Box 7.11 Fees paid by applicants ‘Fees paid by applicants’ is defined as the average civil court fees paid per lodgment. It is derived by dividing the total civil court fees collected (filing, sitting, hearing and deposition fees) by the number of civil lodgments in a year. Providing court service quality is held constant, lower court fees help keep courts accessible. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

COURTS 7.31

In 2015-16, average civil court fees paid per lodgment were greater in supreme courts than in district/county and magistrates’ courts (table 7.19). The average fees collected by the Australian, State and Territory courts vary for many reasons and caution should be used in making direct comparisons.

Table 7.19 Average civil court fees collected per lodgment, 2015-16 (dollars)a, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Supreme (excl. probate) /Federal

3 107

1 941

2 262

2 331

2 999

685

2 842

1 487

2 631

2 512

District/county

1 745

1 797

1 051

1 101

1 098

..

..

..

..

1 445

Magistrates’ (total)

194

207

107

134

113

85

197

50

..

164

Magistrates’ only

209

227

115

139

123

90

206

53

..

177

Children’s

..

Family

..

..

..

361

..

..

..

..

305

329

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

721

721

Probate — Supreme

1 393

374

637

313

1 251

605

1 331

1 350

..

862

a See box 7.11 and table 7A.18 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. b Enforcement, transcript and mediation fees are excluded. .. Not applicable. Nil or rounded to zero.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.18.

Homicide and related offences — selected indicators

The indicators in this chapter do not present data disaggregated by case-type. However, case-type can have a significant impact on performance against certain indicators – some case types will inherently require more court time and judicial resources than other case types, which may impact on backlog and clearance rates. Aggregating performance across all case-types can mask differences in case composition between jurisdictions and court levels.

Disaggregating indicators by case-type is not a straightforward process as a lodgment may involve multiple charges with more than one type of offence. Homicide data have been selected to be presented by indicator in the chapter because of the seriousness of the offence.

Table 7.20 presents indicator data for backlog, attendance and clearance results for homicide and related matters processed by the Supreme, District, Magistrates and Children’s courts during 2015-16. A lodgment for homicide is counted in the following table where any criminal matter initiated, commenced, lodged or filed in a particular court level includes a charge of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or driving causing death. A defendant may have multiple charges of this type on the same file.

7.32 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

It is important to note:

lodgments are based on a count of defendants, not a count of charges

lodgments are counted independently at each court level — for example, if a homicide-related lodgment in a court is transferred to another court level it will be counted at each court level

the charge(s) against a defendant may change once a matter has been lodged in the courts and proceeds through the court process

the data in table 7.20 do not reflect whether or not a defendant has been found guilty

the data in table 7.20 differ from the ABS Criminal Courts data due to different counting rules. This report presents data from a lodgments perspective, whilst the ABS presents data from a finalisations perspective — based upon the 'principal offence' at the time that a defendant is finalised in the criminal court system.

Given that homicide-related lodgments are generally small in number, percentages in the table should be interpreted with caution. The following table presents homicide and related offences data for 2015-16 with time series data in the attachment tables (tables 7A.2, 7A.7, 7A.20, 7A.23 and 7A.25).

COURTS 7.33

Table 7.20 Homicide and related offences, 2015-16a

Unit

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Supreme

Lodgments

no.

93

61

100

46

25

6

10

22

Finalisations

no.

69

73

78

41

35

10

4

12

Pending

no.

98

63

80

36

24

7

5

19

Backlog >12 mths

%

29.6

25.4

20.0

13.9

33.3

28.6

80.0

10.5

Backlog >24 mths

%

2.0

2.5

2.8

20.8

14.3

20.0

Attendance

no.

na

na

6.6

8.0

10.3

15.2

19.5

11.9

Clearance rate

%

74.2

119.7

78.0

89.1

140.0

166.7

40.0

54.5

District/County

Lodgments

no.

103

27

4

26

14

..

..

..

Finalisations

no.

86

34

5

27

11

..

..

..

Pending

no.

93

9

4

16

13

..

..

..

Backlog >12 mths

%

19.4

55.6

25.0

12.5

53.8

..

..

..

Backlog >24 mths

%

6.5

25.0

30.8

..

..

..

Attendance

no.

5.4

6.2

6.4

3.9

5.6

..

..

..

Clearance rate

%

83.5

125.9

125.0

103.8

78.6

..

..

..

Magistrates’

Lodgments

no.

280

174

124

75

59

12

20

15

Finalisations

no.

291

128

123

74

55

5

18

14

Pending

no.

185

117

152

42

33

5

9

10

Backlog >6 mths

%

49.7

29.1

61.8

21.4

21.2

20.0

22.2

30.0

Backlog >12 mths

%

16.8

2.6

29.6

9.1

11.1

Attendance

no.

7.7

6.3

10.5

5.8

5.3

3.4

4.1

7.9

Clearance rate

%

103.9

73.6

99.2

98.7

93.2

41.7

90.0

93.3

Children’s

Lodgments

no.

5

10

3

8

1

na

1

Finalisations

no.

6

6

4

4

2

na

1

1

Pending

no.

5

5

4

6

na

Backlog >6 mths

%

40.0

50.0

na

Backlog >12 mths

%

20.0

50.0

na

Attendance

no.

10.7

13.2

9.0

9.0

3.0

na

3.0

8.0

Clearance rate

%

120.0

60.0

133.3

50.0

200.0

na

100.0

a Homicide and related offences’ is defined according to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC) coding and includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and driving causing death. na Not available. .. Not applicable. – Nil or rounded to zero.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.2, 7A.7, 7A.20, 7A.23 and 7A.25.

Efficiency

Efficiency results need to be viewed in light of the performance indicator framework as a whole, as there can be trade-offs between efficiency on the one hand and equity, effectiveness and quality, on the other.

7.34 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Judicial officers per finalisation

‘Judicial officers per finalisation’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of providing court services in an efficient manner (box 7.12).

Box 7.12 Judicial officers per finalisation ‘Judicial officers per finalisation’ is measured by dividing the number of full time equivalent judicial officers within each court level for the financial year by the total number of finalisations for the same period, and multiplying by 100 to convert to a rate. The following points need to be considered in interpreting the results for this indicator: some finalisations take a short time and require few resources, whereas other finalisations may be resource intensive and involve complicated trials and interlocutory decisions factors such as geographical dispersion, judicial workload and population density are important considerations when comparing figures on judicial officers. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

The number of judicial officers per 100 finalisations is provided in table 7.21.

Table 7.21 Judicial officers per 100 finalisations, 2015-16a

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Supreme/Federal

0.60

0.77

0.42

0.69

0.90

0.53

0.66

0.98

0.95

0.70

District/County

0.34

0.53

0.31

0.40

0.46

..

..

..

..

0.39

Magistrates

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.08

0.06

..

0.04

Children’s

0.14

0.04

0.03

0.06

0.07

0.09

0.20

0.06

..

0.07

Family

..

..

..

0.10

..

..

..

..

0.16

0.13

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

0.07

0.07

Coroners

0.08

0.14

0.15

0.19

0.09

0.57

0.07

0.51

..

0.14

Total

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.14

0.10

0.13

0.07

a See box 7.12 and table 7A.28 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. .. Not applicable.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.28.

Full time equivalent staff (FTE) per finalisation

‘FTE staff per finalisation’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of providing court services in an efficient manner (box 7.13).

COURTS 7.35

Box 7.13 Full time equivalent (FTE) staff per finalisation ‘FTE staff per finalisation’ is measured by dividing the total number of FTE staff employed by courts for the financial year by the total number of finalisations for the same period, and multiplying by 100 to convert to a rate. FTE staff can include the following categories of staff employed directly by court authorities or by umbrella and other departments: judicial officers, judicial support staff and registry court staff court security and sheriff type staff court reporters library and information technology staff counsellors, mediators and interpreters cleaning, gardening and maintenance staff first line support staff and probate staff corporate administration staff and umbrella department staff. The following points need to be considered in interpreting the results for this indicator: some finalisations take a short time and require few resources, whereas other finalisations may be resource intensive and involve complicated trials and interlocutory decisions factors such as geographical dispersion, court workload and population density are important considerations when comparing figures on FTE staff. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) across jurisdictions and over time complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions except ACT.

Data on FTE staff per 100 finalisations for 2015-16 are provided in table 7.22. Additional information on FTE staff per judicial officer employed is provided in table 7A.30.

Table 7.22 Full time equivalent staff per 100 finalisations, 2015-16a, b

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust courts

Total

Criminal courts

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.4

1.2

0.5

..

0.4

Civil courts

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.5

1.2

0.7

5.1

0.6

Family

..

..

..

0.9

..

..

..

..

1.2

1.1

Federal Circuit

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

0.6

0.6

Coroners’ courts

0.6

1.1

1.1

1.5

1.0

1.2

np

1.5

..

1.0

Total

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.5

np

0.5

0.9

0.5

a See box 7.13 and table 7A.29 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats. b Total excludes ACT coroner’s court. .. Not applicable. np Not published.

Source: Australian, State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); table 7A.29.

7.36 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Cost per finalisation

‘Cost per finalisation’ is an indicator of governments’ achievement against the objective of providing court services in an efficient manner (box 7.14).

Box 7.14 Cost per finalisation ‘Cost per finalisation’ is measured by dividing the total recurrent expenditure (gross and net – excluding payroll tax) within each court for the financial year by the total number of finalisations for the same period. This indicator is not a measure of the actual cost per case. The following points need to be considered in interpreting the results for this indicator: some finalisations take a short time and require few resources, whereas other finalisations may be resource intensive and involve complicated trials and interlocutory decisions expenditure data may include arbitrary allocation between criminal and civil jurisdictions net expenditure is calculated by deducting income (court fees and other sources of revenue, excluding fines) from total expenditure net expenditure in civil courts is impacted by court fee relief and exemptions a number of factors are beyond the control of jurisdictions, such as geographic dispersion, economies of scale and socioeconomic factors. Data reported for this indicator are: comparable (subject to caveats) within jurisdictions over time but are not comparable across jurisdictions complete for the current reporting period (subject to caveats). All required 2015-16 data are available for all jurisdictions.

In general, the net recurrent expenditure per finalisation for civil courts will be lower than criminal courts because relatively little income is generated by the criminal court system (tables 7A.31–33). Civil court fee structures can also affect cost per finalisation results.

Cost per finalisation for the Supreme courts and the Federal Court of Australia

Nationally in 2015-16, total net expenditure per finalisation in the criminal jurisdiction of supreme courts ($23 494) was greater than the total net expenditure per finalisation for the civil jurisdiction ($6865) (figure 7.3).

COURTS 7.37

Figure 7.3 Recurrent expenditure per finalisation, supreme courts and the Federal Court of Australia, 2015-16a

(a) Gross recurrent expenditure

(b) Net recurrent expenditure

a See box 7.14 and tables 7A.31-35 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments and the Federal Court of Australia (unpublished); tables 7A.31—35.

7.38 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Cost per finalisation for district/county courts

Nationally in 2015-16, total net expenditure per finalisation in the criminal jurisdiction of district/county courts ($9249) was about three times that in the civil jurisdiction ($2600) (figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4 Recurrent expenditure per finalisation, district/county courts, 2015-16a

(a) Gross recurrent expenditure

(b) Net recurrent expenditure

a See box 7.14 and tables 7A.31-35 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.31—35.

COURTS 7.39

Cost per finalisation for magistrates’ courts (including children’s courts)

Nationally in 2015-16 for magistrates’ courts, net expenditure per criminal finalisation ($537) was greater than net expenditure per civil finalisation ($343).

Figure 7.5 Recurrent expenditure per finalisation, total magistrates’ courts (including magistrates’ and children’s courts), 2015-16a

(a) Gross recurrent expenditure

(b) Net recurrent expenditure

a See box 7.14 and tables 7A.31-35 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: State and Territory court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.31—35.

7.40 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Whilst finalisations in children’s courts are smaller in number than the magistrates courts, they are more expensive in the civil courts ($1393 compared to $271 per case finalised).

Expenditure per finalisation for family courts and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

The Family Court of Australia, Family Court of WA and the Federal Circuit Court are responsible for determining matters related to family law and child support, but each court has a different focus, breadth and complexity of work, which contributes to the differences in recurrent expenditure per finalisation results presented in figure 7.6 (see table 7A.42 for details).

Figure 7.6 Recurrent expenditure per finalisation, family courts and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, 2015-16a

a See box 7.14 and tables 7A.32 and 7A.35 for detailed definitions, footnotes and caveats.

Source: Australian and State court authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 7A.32 and 7A.35.

Expenditure per reported death and fire for coroners’ courts

Nationally, net expenditure per reported death and fire in coroners’ courts (excluding costs associated with autopsy, forensic science, pathology tests and body conveyancing fees) was approximately $1756 in 2015-16 (tables 7A.32 and 7A.35).

COURTS 7.41

Outcomes

Outcomes are the impact of services on the status of an individual or group (see chapter 1).

No outcome indicators for courts are currently reported. However, court activities lead to broader outcomes within the overall justice system that are not readily addressed in this service-specific chapter. The Steering Committee has identified outcome indicators as an important element of the performance indicator framework to develop for future reports.

7.42 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

7.4 Definitions of key terms

Active pending population

A lodgment that is yet to be finalised but is part of the active case management of court administrators.

Average expenditure per civil case

The total cost of the administrative services provided to civil matters, divided by the total number of civil files handled. Can include salaries, sheriff expenses, juror costs, accommodation costs, library services, information technology, departmental overheads and court operating expenses.

Attendance indicator

The average number of attendances for each finalisation in the reporting period. An attendance is defined as the number of times that parties or their representatives are required to be present in court (including any appointment which is adjourned or rescheduled) for all finalised matters during the year. The actual attendance is one that is heard by a judicial officer or mediator/arbitrator.

Backlog indicator

A measure of case processing timeliness. It is the number of pending cases older than the applicable reporting standards, divided by the total pending caseload (multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).

Case

The measurement of workload in the civil jurisdiction. It is the issues, grievances or complaints that constitute a single and related series of disputes brought by an entity (or group of entities) against another entity (or group).

Clearance rate

An indicator that shows whether the volume of case finalisations has matched the volume of case lodgments during the reporting period. It indicates whether a court’s pending caseload has increased or decreased over that period.

Comparability

Data are considered comparable if, (subject to caveats) they can be used to inform an assessment of comparative performance. Typically, data are considered comparable when they are collected in the same way and in accordance with the same definitions. For comparable indicators or measures, significant differences in reported results allow an assessment of differences in performance, rather than being the result of anomalies in the data.

Completeness

Data are considered complete if all required data are available for all jurisdictions that provide the service.

Cost recovery

The level of court fees divided by the level of court expenditure.

Court fees collected

Total court income from fees charged in the civil jurisdiction. Can include filing, sitting hearing and deposition fees, and excludes transcript fees.

Electronic infringement and enforcement system

A court with the capacity to produce enforceable orders against defendants (such as fines, licence cancellation and incarceration) and to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary offences.

Excluded courts and tribunals

This includes such bodies as guardianship boards, environment resources and development courts, and administrative appeals tribunals. The types of excluded courts and tribunals vary among the states and territories.

Extraordinary driver's licence

An extraordinary licence is a licence granted at the discretion of the court. It authorises the holder to drive in certain circumstances even though the holder's normal driver's licence has been suspended.

Finalisation

The completion of a matter so it ceases to be an item of work to be dealt with by the court.

Forms

The counting unit used in the family courts and family law matters pertaining to the Federal Circuit Court. Forms are applications or notices lodged with the court.

Income

Income derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue, probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).

COURTS 7.43

Information technology expenditure

Non-salary and salary expenditure on information technology. Excludes capital expenditure on information technology infrastructure and can include licensing costs, computer leasing costs, the cost of consumables (such as data lines, paper and disks), training fees, access fees (for example, catalogue search and Internet access) and maintenance charges for software and hardware.

Inquests and inquiries held

Court hearings to determine the cause and circumstances of deaths reported to the coroner. Includes all coronial inquests and inquiries in full court hearings.

Judicial officer

Judges, magistrates, masters, coroners, judicial registrars and all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence, make enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of the proportion of time spent on the judicial activity.

Judicial and judicial support salaries

All salary expenditure and payments in the nature of salary that are paid to employees of court administration. Can include base salaries, the employer contributed component of superannuation, workers compensation (full cost, inclusive of any levies, bills and legal fees), higher duty allowances, overtime, actual and accruing terminal and long service leave, fringe benefits tax and untaxed fringe benefits.

(Judicial officers can include judges, magistrates, masters, judicial registrars and other judicial officers who fulfil a primarily judicial function. Judicial support staff include judicial secretaries, tipstaff and associates.)

Library expenditure

Non-salary and salary expenditure on court operated libraries. Non-salary expenditure includes book purchases, journal subscriptions, fees for interlibrary loans, copyright charges, news clippings service fees and photocopying.

Expenditure also includes recurrent information technology costs and court administration contributions towards the running costs of non-government operated libraries. Any costs recovered through borrowing and photocopy fees by court operated libraries are subtracted from expenditure.

Lodgment

The initiation or commencement of a matter before the court. The date of commencement is counted as the date of registration of a court matter.

Matters

Coronial matters: Deaths and fires reported to the coroner in each jurisdiction, including all reported deaths and fires regardless of whether the coroner held an inquest or inquiry. Coronial jurisdictions can extend to the manner of the death of a person who was killed; was found drowned; died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown; died under suspicious or unusual circumstances; died during or following the administration of an operation of a medical, surgical, dental, diagnostic or like nature; died in a prison remand centre or lockup; or died under circumstances that (in the opinion of the Attorney-General) require that the cause of death be more clearly ascertained.

Criminal matters: Matters brought to the court by a government prosecuting agency, which is generally the Director of Public Prosecutions but could also be the Attorney-General, the police, local councils or traffic camera branches.

Civil matters: Matters brought before the court by individuals or organisations against another party, such as small claims and residential tenancies, as well as matters dealt with by the appeal court jurisdiction.

Excluded matters: Extraordinary driver’s licence applications; any application on a pending dispute; applications for bail directions or judgment; secondary processes (for example, applications for default judgments); interlocutory matters; investigation/examination summonses; firearms appeals; escort agents’ licensing appeals; pastoral lands appeals; local government tribunals; police promotions appeals; applications appealing the decisions of workers compensation review officers.

Probate matters: Matters such as applications for the appointment of an executor or administrator to the estate of a deceased person.

Method of finalisation

The process that leads to the completion of a criminal charge within a higher court so it ceases to be an item of work in that court.

Method of initiation

How a criminal charge is introduced to a court level.

7.44 REPORT ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2017

Non-adjudicated finalisation

A non-adjudicated finalisation is where a charge is considered completed and ceases to be active in a court even though there has not been a determination on whether the defendant is guilty, that is, the charge(s) have not been adjudicated. The methods of non-adjudicated finalisation include but are not limited to defendant deceased; unfit to plead; withdrawn by the prosecution; diplomatic immunity and statute of limitation applies.

Probate registry expenditure

Salary expenditure of the probate registrar and probate clerks, along with non-salary expenditure directly attributable to probate registries.

Real expenditure

Actual expenditure adjusted for changes in prices using the general government final consumption expenditure (GGFCE) chain price index deflator and expressed in terms of current year prices (i.e. for the courts chapter with 2015-16 as the base year). Additional information about the GGFCE index can be found in chapter 2.

Recurrent expenditure

Expenditure that does not result in the creation or acquisition of fixed assets (new or second hand). It consists mainly of expenditure on wages, salaries and supplements, purchases of goods and services, and the consumption of fixed capital (depreciation).

Sheriff and bailiff expenditure

Expenditure on court orderlies, court security, jury management and witness payment administration. For the civil jurisdiction, it can include expenditure (by or on behalf of the court) on bailiffs to enforce court orders. In the coronial jurisdiction, it can include expenditure on police officers permanently attached to the coroner for the purpose of assisting in coronial investigations. Excludes witness payments, fines enforcement (criminal jurisdiction) and prisoner security.

Specialist jurisdiction court

A court which has exclusive jurisdiction in a field of law presided over by a judicial officer with expertise in that area. Examples of these types of courts which are within the scope of this Report are the family courts, the Children’s Courts and the Coroners’ Courts. Examples of specialist jurisdiction courts which are excluded from this Report include Indigenous and circle sentencing courts and drug courts.

COURTS 7.45

7.5 References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2016, Criminal Courts, Australia, 2014-15, Cat. no. 4513.0, Canberra.

Family Court of Australia annual report 2014-15, http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/15bcbde4-460f-4498-8c10-aee4f64ddff1/2181-FCoA_AR_2014%E2%80%9315_WEB.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (accessed 17 November 2016).

Productivity Commission 2014, Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra.

Taylor A, Ibrahim N, Wakefield S and Finn K 2015, Domestic and family violence protection orders in Australia: An investigation of information sharing and enforcement, State of knowledge paper Issue 16, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, Sydney.

7A

Courts— attachment

Definitionsfortheindicatorsanddescriptorsinthisattachmentareinsection7.4ofthechapter.DatainthisReportareexaminedbytheCourtsWorkingGroup,buthavenotbeenformallyauditedbytheSecretariat.Dataforpastyearshavebeenrevisedforsomejurisdictions,wherethishasoccurred,totalsandanyderiveddatahavebeenrecalculated.ForthisreasondataforpastyearspresentedinthisReportmayvaryfromfigurespublishedinearliereditionsofthisReport.Disaggregatedfiguresmaynotaddtothetotalfigurebecauseofrounding.Further,becauseofroundingofnumbersandtheapplicationofnationalcountingrules,figurespresentedintheReportmaydifferfromcountspublishedelsewhere,suchasinjurisdictions'annualreportsandtheABScriminal courts publication.

This file is available in Adobe PDF format on the Review web page (www.pc.gov.au/rogs/2017).

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

CONTENTS

Courts — attachment

Table 7A.1

Lodgments, criminal

Table 7A.2

Lodgments, criminal, homicide and related offences

Table 7A.3

Lodgments, civil

Table 7A.4

Lodgments, criminal, per 100 000 people

Table 7A.5

Lodgments, civil, per 100 000 people

Table 7A.6

Finalisations, criminal

Table 7A.7

Finalisations, criminal, homicide and related offences

Table 7A.8

Finalisations, civil

Table 7A.9

Finalisations, criminal, per 100 000 people

Table 7A.10

Finalisations, civil, per 100 000 people

Table 7A.11

Real recurrent expenditure, criminal, 2015-16 dollars ($'000)

Table 7A.12

Real recurrent expenditure, civil, 2015-16 dollars ($’000)

Table 7A.13

Real income (excluding fines), criminal and civil, 2015-16 dollars ($’000)

Table 7A.14

Real net recurrent expenditure, criminal, 2015-16 dollars ($’000)

Table 7A.15

Real net recurrent expenditure, civil, 2015-16 dollars ($’000)

Table 7A.16

Real net recurrent expenditure, criminal and civil, 2015-16 dollars ($’000)

Table 7A.17

Costrecovery–civilcourtfeescollectedasaproportionofcivilexpenditureexcludingpayroll tax (per cent)

Table 7A.18

Real average civil court fees collected per lodgment, 2015-16 dollars ($)

Table 7A.19

Backlog indicator, criminal (as at 30 June)

Table 7A.20

Backlog indicator, criminal, homicide and related offences (as at 30 June)

Table 7A.21

Backlog indicator, civil (as at 30 June)

Table 7A.22

Attendance indicator, criminal and civil

Table 7A.23

Attendance indicator, criminal, homicide and related offences

Table 7A.24

Clearance rate - finalisations/lodgments, criminal (per cent)

Table 7A.25

Clearance rate, criminal, homicide and related offences (per cent)

Table 7A.26

Clearance rate – finalisations/lodgments, civil (per cent)

Table 7A.27

Judicial officers (FTE and number per 100 000 people)

Table 7A.28

Judicial officers per 100 finalisations

Table 7A.29

Full time equivalent (FTE) staff per 100 finalisations

Table 7A.30

Full time equivalent (FTE) staff per judicial officer employed

Table 7A.31

Real net recurrent expenditure per finalisation, criminal, 2015–16 dollars ($)

Table 7A.32

Real net recurrent expenditure per finalisation, civil, 2015–16 dollars ($)

Table 7A.33

Real net recurrent expenditure per finalisation, criminal and civil, 2015–16 dollars ($)

Table 7A.34

Real recurrent expenditure per finalisation, criminal, 2015–16 dollars ($)

Table 7A.35

Real recurrent expenditure per finalisation, civil, 2015–16 dollars ($)

Table 7A.36

Cases finalised after a trial has commenced (non-appeal), per cent

Table 7A.37

Treatment of assets by courts authorities REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 1 of CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Courts — attachment

Table 7A.38

Supreme court jurisdictions across states and territories

Table 7A.39

District/county court jurisdictions across states and territories

Table 7A.40

Magistrates court jurisdictions across states and territories

Table 7A.41

State and territory court levels - specific elements

Table 7A.42

Australian court levels - specific elements

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 2 of CONTENTS

TABLE 7A.1

Table 7A.1

Lodgments, criminal (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust cts

Total

Supreme courts (b), (c)

Appeal

2015-16

360

276

410

310

263

32

98

16

..

1 765

2014-15

356

327

342

308

265

35

115

17

..

1 765

2013-14

395

319

367

361

265

22

138

19

..

1 886

2012-13

328

300

376

448

239

22

108

29

..

1 850

2011-12

370

358

391

405

296

28

115

21

..

1 984

2010-11

402

413

377

372

283

33

119

19

..

2 018

Non-appeal

2015-16

109

81

1 712

328

60

449

181

732

..

3 652

2014-15

104

125

1 268

305

50

469

220

668

..

3 209

2013-14

88

117

963

298

65

454

242

482

..

2 709

2012-13

122

145

839

269

85

523

176

484

..

2 643

2011-12

137

83

1 068

257

58

564

280

519

..

2 966

2010-11

123

116

1 529

221

59

613

244

436

..

3 341

Total

2015-16

469

357

2 122

638

323

481

279

748

..

5 417

2014-15

460

452

1 610

613

315

504

335

685

..

4 974

2013-14

483

436

1 330

659

330

476

380

501

..

4 595

2012-13

450

445

1 215

717

324

545

284

513

..

4 493

2011-12

507

441

1 459

662

354

592

395

540

..

4 950

2010-11

525

529

1 906

593

342

646

363

455

..

5 359

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 1 of TABLE 7A.1

TABLE 7A.1

Table 7A.1

Lodgments, criminal (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust cts

Total

District/county courts (c), (d), (e)

Appeal

2015-16

7 622

3 059

434

..

..

..

..

..

..

11 115

2014-15

7 099

2 966

448

..

..

..

..

..

..

10 513

2013-14

6 937

2 820

427

..

..

..

..

..

..

10 184

2012-13

6 544

2 891

405

..

..

..

..

..

..

9 840

2011-12

6 729

2 697

529

..

..

..

..

..

..

9 955

2010-11

7 158

2 584

868

..

..

..

..

..

..

10 610

Non-appeal

2015-16

4 870

2 232

5 879

2 448

2 172

..

..

..

..

17 601

2014-15

4 264

2 113

5 553

2 176

2 294

..

..

..

..

16 400

2013-14

4 086

2 350

5 232

1 928

2 371

..

..

..

..

15 967

2012-13

3 952

2 461

4 703

1 991

2 301

..

..

..

..

15 408

2011-12

3 636

2 211

5 120

1 972

2 048

..

..

..

..

14 987

2010-11

3 575

2 378

5 609

1 988

2 025

15 575

Total

2015-16

12 492

5 291

6 313

2 448

2 172

..

..

..

..

28 716

2014-15

11 363

5 079

6 001

2 176

2 294

..

..

..

..

26 913

2013-14

11 023

5 170

5 659

1 928

2 371

..

..

..

..

26 151

2012-13

10 496

5 352

5 108

1 991

2 301

..

..

..

..

25 248

2011-12

10 365

4 908

5 649

1 972

2 048

..

..

..

..

24 942

2010-11

10 733

4 962

6 477

1 988

2 025

26 185

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 2 of TABLE 7A.1

TABLE 7A.1

Table 7A.1

Lodgments, criminal (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust cts

Total

Magistrates’ courts

Magistrates’ courts only (excl. children's courts) (f), (g), (h)

2015-16

186 913

160 942

219 218

92 251

51 997

17 664

5 504

14 601

..

749 090

2014-15

168 979

247 025

205 905

91 004

49 476

17 024

6 219

15 646

..

801 278

2013-14

158 919

218 409

205 038

81 055

52 523

15 640

6 879

16 633

..

755 096

2012-13

153 065

175 345

188 524

83 912

54 357

15 876

5 119

15 492

..

691 690

2011-12

146 451

172 323

183 717

86 303

54 826

19 756

5 429

13 743

..

682 548

2010-11

179 181

166 791

178 567

90 865

50 208

21 508

5 293

12 721

705 134

Children's courts

2015-16

10 511

23 688

12 190

6 349

4 159

1 109

273

2 293

..

60 572

2014-15

10 476

20 777

11 645

6 124

4 316

1 230

269

2 031

..

56 868

2013-14

9 881

19 951

12 000

6 414

5 088

1 305

338

2 128

..

57 105

2012-13

10 040

20 816

11 721

6 902

5 355

1 567

408

2 015

..

58 824

2011-12

10 572

19 747

12 306

7 163

5 967

2 130

527

1 840

..

60 252

2010-11

16 843

18 650

11 866

8 359

5 939

1 906

595

1 192

..

65 350

Total magistrates' courts (incl. children's courts) (f), (g), (h)

2015-16

197 424

184 630

231 408

98 600

56 156

18 773

5 777

16 894

..

809 662

2014-15

179 455

267 802

217 550

97 128

53 792

18 254

6 488

17 677

..

858 146

2013-14

168 800

238 360

217 038

87 469

57 611

16 945

7 217

18 761

..

812 201

2012-13

163 105

196 161

200 245

90 814

59 712

17 443

5 527

17 507

..

750 514

2011-12

157 023

192 070

196 023

93 466

60 793

21 886

5 956

15 583

..

742 800

2010-11

196 024

185 441

190 433

99 224

56 147

23 414

5 888

13 913

..

770 484

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 3 of TABLE 7A.1

TABLE 7A.1

Table 7A.1

Lodgments, criminal (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust cts

Total

All criminal courts

2015-16

210 385

190 278

239 843

101 686

58 651

19 254

6 056

17 642

..

843 795

2014-15

191 278

273 333

225 161

99 917

56 401

18 758

6 823

18 362

..

890 033

2013-14

180 306

243 966

224 027

90 056

60 312

17 421

7 597

19 262

..

842 947

2012-13

174 051

201 958

206 568

93 522

62 337

17 988

5 811

18 020

..

780 255

2011-12

167 895

197 419

203 131

96 100

63 195

22 478

6 351

16 123

..

772 692

2010-11

207 282

190 932

198 816

101 805

58 514

24 060

6 251

14 368

..

802 028

Aust cts = Australian courts.

(a)

(b)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(c)

InQueensland,legislativechangesfrom1November2010haveallowedtheMagistratesCourttohearalargernumberofindictableoffencesundercertainconditions.Thisonlyappliestomatterscommencedinthecourtsystemafter1November2010.Thesechangeswillimpactlodgmentsinthehighercourtsfrom1November2010.From8November2010,policeofficerswereabletousediscretiontoissueinfringementnoticesforarangeofcommonoffences.From 2010-11 there was also a reduction in traffic offences brought before the court.

Countingunitsforthecriminalcourtlodgmentdataarebasedon:thenumberofdefendantsforStateandTerritorycriminalcourts;andthenumberofunpaidinfringementnoticesforelectronicinfringementandenforcementsystems.Unlessotherwisenoted,mattersexcludedfromthecriminalcourtlodgmentdatainthiscollectionare:anylodgmentthatdoesnothaveadefendantelement;extraordinarydriver’slicenceapplications;bailprocedures(includingapplicationsandreview);directions;warrants;andsecondaryprocesses—forexample,interlocutorymatters,breachesofpenalties(thatis,bail,suspendedsentences,probation).

QueenslandSupremeandDistrictCourtdataforthenumberoforiginatingcriminallodgmentsisbasedonacountofthenumberofdefendantswhohadaCourtRecordenteredonthecomputerisedCaseManagementSysteminthefinancialyear,itisnotacountofthenumberofdefendantscommittedtotheSupreme Court and District Court for trial or sentencing.

InNSW,VictoriaandQueensland,thecriminaljurisdictionofthedistrict/countycourtscanhearappeals.AppealsarenotheardinthisjurisdictioninWAorSA, instead they are heard in the Supreme courts in SA and WA. The District court does not operate in Tasmania, ACT or the NT.

TheWADistrictCourtcriminalnon-appealmattersdatabetween2011-12and2014-15wererevisedin2015-16followingtheimplementationofanimprovedmethodology relating to the treatment of charge transfers from one indictment to another within the same jurisdiction.

VictorianSupremeCourt-Appeal:Thedecreaseinappeallodgmentsin2015-16isconsideredtohaveseveralcontributingfactorsincludingtheeffectofnewJuryDirectionlegislation,theCourtofAppeal'sguidelinejudgmentinrelationtotheuseofcommunitycorrectionordersinsentencing.Non-appeal:Thenumber of lodgments has decreased it is believed due to a backlog of matters at the committal stage.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 4 of TABLE 7A.1

TABLE 7A.1

Table 7A.1

Lodgments, criminal (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Aust cts

Total

(g)

(h)

.. Not applicable.

Source:

Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished).

In2015-16theVictorianMagistrates'courtmadechangestoitscasemanagementsystemtoimproveprocessesrelatingtotheinitiationofinfringementmattersreferredtothecourt.Thishasaffectedthecountingrulesinrelationtolodgmentsresultinginanoverallreduction.Underthepreviouscountingruleslodgments for 2015-16 would have been 272 599.

The increase in the ACT Magistrates court criminal matters in 2013-14 was due to the prosecution of a large number of non-voting matters.

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 5 of TABLE 7A.1

TABLE 7A.2

Table 7A.2

Lodgments, criminal, Homicide and related offences (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Total

Supreme courts (b)

Non-appeal

2015-16

93

61

100

46

25

6

10

22

363

2014-15

82

83

86

38

29

11

3

17

349

2013-14

74

53

79

49

45

16

3

30

349

2012-13

100

78

86

50

33

14

3

22

386

2011-12

107

54

93

31

38

6

7

8

344

2010-11

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

District/county courts

Non-appeal

2015-16

103

27

4

26

14

..

..

..

174

2014-15

65

30

6

39

10

..

..

..

150

2013-14

54

22

8

27

12

..

..

..

123

2012-13

81

31

15

31

9

..

..

..

167

2011-12

88

39

11

16

17

..

..

..

171

2010-11

na

48

na

na

na

..

..

..

na

Magistrates’ courts (excluding children's)

2015-16

280

174

124

75

59

12

20

15

759

2014-15

274

144

138

88

61

12

14

26

757

2013-14

261

126

94

92

60

14

25

23

695

2012-13

274

144

108

98

77

8

16

27

752

2011-12

286

118

98

79

65

10

17

24

697

2010-11

na

113

na

na

na

15

na

na

na

REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT

SERVICES 2017

COURTS

PAGE 1 of TABLE 7A.2

TABLE 7A.2

Table 7A.2

Lodgments, criminal, Homicide and related offences (a)

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

ACT

NT

Total

Children's courts

2015-16

5

10

3

8

1

na

1

28

2014-15

11

3

3

7

1

na

1

26

2013-14

8

1

5

14

1

na

2

31