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

in reply—Firstly, I thank the members who contributed to this debate on the Crimes Amendment (Bail and Sentencing) Bill 2006. When I spoke earlier in the day, I tabled an explanatory memorandum. I am informed that I should in fact table a revised explanatory memorandum which has some additions relating to the Senate’s consideration of this measure.

This bill, and the additional amendments I have foreshadowed that I will move in the consideration in detail stage, is consistent with the intent of the Council of Australian Governments agreement following the Intergovernmental Summit on Violence and Child Abuse in Indigenous Communities. Criminal behaviour cannot in any way be excused, justified or authorised, required or rendered less serious because of customary law or cultural practice—that is the question of principle—nor has it ever been intended that a customary law or cultural practice aggravate the seriousness of a criminal behaviour. This bill forms one element in our approach to addressing these difficult issues. I would not suggest, as did the member who just spoke, that the bill contains all of the answers. It was never intended that it would, but it is part of a total mosaic.

At the Intergovernmental Summit on Violence and Child Abuse in Indigenous Communities we called upon all Australian jurisdictions to take action against the perpetrators of violence and abuse, and we will continue to work with the states to improve Australia’s justice system and to encourage them to make similar changes to their sentencing and bail provisions. By amending the bail and sentencing provisions of the Crimes Act, the Commonwealth is demonstrating leadership in the area of law and order, and it will continue to improve the criminal justice system for all Australians, in this case especially for Indigenous Australians who are victims of violence or sexual abuse.

This measure will not, and nobody has ever argued that it will, deal with the substantive issues that are crimes at a state or territory level. Those matters have to be dealt with in those jurisdictions at those levels. But I can imagine what would have been said if we had not moved to deal with these issues. We would have been accused of hypocrisy for leaving measures in Commonwealth legislation that we were asking the states and territories to remove. Even though I do not imagine that the Commonwealth offences in the Crimes Act would apply with any frequency to Indigenous people, you cannot have, in my view, model arrangements which you ask the states to implement being ignored by the Commonwealth.

As I mentioned, this bill is about leadership. We are about encouraging the states and territories to follow suit and to fulfil their commitment arising from COAG. We are putting the issue of whether customary law and cultural background can be used as an excuse or justification for criminal behaviour beyond doubt. At the summit, the government committed to a range of practical measures intended to address the serious issues of violence and abuse in Indigenous communities. This bill complements those practical measures. I notice that the member for Denison, who has just joined us, seemed to be critical of the outcome of the summit.

See this speech in context