A capability review of WA’s Justice Department shows a system overwhelmed by rising demand, delays and overcrowding. The underlying problem is political – punitive law-and-order settings that expand pressure without building capacity or preventing harm.

The most telling finding of Western Australia’s recent Agency Capability Review of the Department of Justice is not buried in its technical detail, but in its resignation: the system is under escalating pressure, the agency is struggling to manage demand, and there is little confidence that “strategic leadership and coordinated reform” can be achieved under current settings. That assessment should alarm anyone concerned with justice, community safety and democratic governance.

The review, conducted by the Public Sector Commission, adopts a measured and managerial tone. Yet when read through the lens of penal populism, it depicts a justice system buckling under the weight of policies that promise safety through punishment while systematically eroding institutional capacity.

The review is not simply a performance assessment; it is an indictment of the political choices that have overwhelmed the system.

Politicians have repeatedly turned to penal populism: a political approach that privileges simple, punitive responses to complex social problems. Tougher laws, harsher penalties and longer sentences are presented as the primary pathway to community safety, particularly during moments of moral panic or political contest.

The review exposes the consequences of this penal populism. Legislative and policy decisions that expand criminalisation, tighten bail and parole, or promote ‘zero tolerance’ inevitably increase demand on courts, prisons and community corrections. Yet these institutions have finite capacity. The Department does not control social conditions that drive crime, policing priorities or judicial decision-making, but it is left to manage the cumulative fallout of those forces.

Penal populism, far from strengthening the justice system, has inflated demand, undermined strategic planning and degraded the conditions necessary for delivering justice and safety.

The review describes a department that is overstretched, reactive and fragmented. The scale of court delay is stark: in the District Court, criminal matters now wait a median of 64 weeks before reaching trial. Prisons are overcrowded, driven largely by rising remand populations and bottlenecks in assessment, treatment and parole pathways. Staffing shortages are intensifying workforce pressures. Service delivery is compromised. Workers’ compensation claims are increasing. Strategic planning is weak, silo thinking persists, and data is under-utilised.

Importantly, the review does not frame shortcomings as managerial failures. Instead, it recognises that the Department is operating in a “demanding and high pressure environment” where urgent operational demands displace long-term planning. The agency is largely reacting to pressures rather than shaping them.

The Department exists to support a fair, just and safe community by administering courts, legal services and corrections. These functions are essential: courts must operate efficiently, legal processes must be accessible, and custody must be safe and humane.

Yet the review implicitly demonstrates the limits of conventional justice when it is tasked with managing problems that are fundamentally social, economic and historical. Upstream drivers such as homelessness, unemployment, social exclusion and systemic discrimination – disproportionately borne by Aboriginal people as a legacy of colonisation – continue to funnel individuals into contact with the justice system.

Downstream, inadequate housing, limited employment opportunities and weak community-based supports undermine reintegration and fuel recidivism.

No amount of internal restructuring can resolve these pressures while the policy emphasis remains overwhelmingly punitive. This is starkly illustrated by the persistent over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody, which is a problem the review acknowledges but cannot solve within existing institutional boundaries.

One key recommendation is for the Department to exercise stronger “system leadership”. While this is reasonable, it also exposes a deeper limitation: justice outcomes cannot be delivered by justice agencies alone. Courts and corrections are only one part of a broader social response to harm.

If government is serious about community safety, responsibility must be broadened beyond the Department. This requires sustained investment in community-driven responses that prevent harm, reduce justice system contact and provide support and healing. It also demands a willingness to adopt longer-term measures of success which focus on addressing root causes of crime and enhancing social cohesion.

Two approaches stand out as essential complements to the existing system: justice reinvestment and community-based restorative justice.

Justice reinvestment redirects a portion of spending away from prisons and into community responses such as housing, education, healthcare, family support and culturally grounded programs. It recognises that prisons are among the most expensive and least effective responses to social harm. By addressing the drivers of justice involvement, justice reinvestment reduces pressure on courts and prisons while improving community well-being.

Restorative justice offers a fundamentally different thinking about community safety. By centring victims, offenders and communities in processes of repair, it shifts the focus from punishment to accountability, healing and resolution of harm. Restorative approaches are designed to respect individual participants, restore relationships and promote the common good.

The review points to promising examples, particularly in youth justice, where culturally informed, trauma-aware and community-led restorative initiatives are demonstrating positive outcomes. These initiatives should not remain marginal or exceptional; they should inform a broader reorientation of justice policy.

The review is not simply an indictment of the Department. It is evidence that penal populism has reached its institutional limits. The system is congested, staff are exhausted, and the promise that ever-greater punishment will deliver safety is wearing thin.

The WA Government now faces a clear choice. It can continue to demand more from a system already stretched beyond capacity, or it can broaden responsibility for justice outcomes beyond the walls of courts and prisons.

A safer community will not be achieved through excessive punishment. It will be built by reducing upstream pressures that drive offending and victimisation; through sustained investment in housing, employment and social supports; through resourcing Aboriginal place-based organisations with authority and continuity; through locally embedded services and restorative responses that repair harm and prevent its repetition.

In doing so, government can restore balance to the justice system by easing pressure on the formal system and enabling the Department to do its core work of upholding legal process, supporting the courts, and running corrections humanely and competently.