House debates

Tuesday, 28 November 2006

Crimes Amendment (Bail and Sentencing) Bill 2006

Second Reading

5:24 pm

Photo of Philip RuddockPhilip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

That is very interesting because he is demonstrating a willingness to be critical of his state Labor Party colleagues on some issues. I just wish he would be as vocal on a number of other issues. I would hope he would be different from his leader, who seems to see a lot of the conduct at the state and territory level as mere peccadilloes. In my view they were substantial issues—in fact, in some cases requiring the resignation of ministers and, in my view, requiring the resignation of other ministers.

It has been argued that this bill is premature because it is still under consideration by SCAG and COAG. Let me put beyond doubt that COAG did decide to improve the effectiveness of the bail provisions. It asked the standing committee to provide a report. We are taking action to implement the COAG decision through the proposed legislative amendments, and we will be reporting on these actions back to COAG through the SCAG process. The government is also undertaking bilateral negotiations with state and territory governments in relation to the outcomes, and in these discussions the state and territory governments are being encouraged to follow our lead and to make similar amendments. We do not see any need to wait. We think these issues are particularly important.

It has been suggested that this bill interferes with innovations in sentencing Indigenous offenders, including circle sentencing, and that it is discriminatory in that sense. This bill does not limit any sentencing options available to a court. The government supports alternative sentencing and restorative justice processes. However, it does not support offenders receiving a lesser penalty by reason of a belief in customary law or cultural practices. Accordingly, any sentencing processes must ensure that all Australians are treated equally. Circle sentencing is about the process of setting up an appropriate sentence; it is not about ensuring that cultural background can be used to reduce the seriousness of the criminal conduct. The advice that the government has on that matter in terms of the Racial Discrimination Act is that the bill is consistent with it.

It has been suggested that this bill runs counter to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The recommendations of the royal commission were extensive. There were 339 in all and they covered a broad range of issues. The government is taking a balanced approach in relation to the needs of victims and communities. The royal commission recommendations most relevant to the bill include recommendations 89, 90, 91 and 242, which relate to bail. The proposed legislative amendments will not directly affect any of the actions taken to respond to recommendations 89, 90, 91 or 242. There was no suggestion in the royal commission report that Aboriginal offenders should receive more lenient sentences due to their cultural background. In fact, the government is delivering on a range of programs and services to Indigenous Australians to address Indigenous disadvantage.

It has been suggested by Senator Ludwig that we have not moved in relation to his private member’s bill on victim impact statements. Let me just say that victim impact statements will be considered in the context of our response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report on sentencing. We think this bill responds to a very real issue in relation to violence, particularly violence against women and children in Indigenous communities, where we need to put beyond doubt that there is any particular cultural practice either real or imagined that justifies conduct of that sort. I am surprised that so many people would be on the record as wanting to oppose measures to achieve this outcome.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Comments

No comments