Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Given the time, I will deal with just the broad areas that I want to touch upon in the Crimes Amendment (Bail and Sentencing) Bill 2006. In the other place the government has amended this law on the basis that it seems to be better to have bad consistent law than to have bad inconsistent law. But I want to make one thing clear: Labor’s view is that this bill represents bad law. Labor was opposed to the removal of the reference to cultural background in bail and sentencing procedures when we debated the bill previously, and we are opposed to the additional references that will now be removed.

Let me explain. I raised the issue of section 19B when we debated the bill previously. What was exposed, particularly with the minister’s inability to provide anything that resembled an explanation for the inconsistency, was just how rushed this bill and ill-considered this legislation is. What it also exposed was the true motive. The true motive of this bill is to divert attention from the failings of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and those of the government more widely, specifically in this area. If this exercise were actually about improving the problems in the law, the government would have taken a thorough and consistent approach to drafting the legislation in the first place. It also would have supplied a written explanatory memorandum that laid the case for change and provided evidence to support it. I suspect that it would have also consulted a lot more broadly.

But, of course, that is not what happened. Instead, we witnessed the Minister for Justice and Customs mumbling through a justification for the inconsistency, only for him to turn and around and say, ‘The Attorney-General will address the matter when the bill reaches the House.’ Then, when the Attorney-General did turn to the matter with his amendments, it turned into an even bigger fiasco. The additional three amendments moved in the House of Representatives dealt with forensic procedures and had nothing to do with bail and sentencing. As such, it seems to me that they are unrelated to the primary purpose of this bill.

As the explanatory memorandum states, the purpose of this bill is to amend the sentencing and bail provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 in accordance with the decision made by the Council of Australian Governments on 14 July 2006 following the Intergovernmental Summit on Violence and Child Abuse in Indigenous Communities on 26 June 2006. Yet we now have a bill which actually amends the forensic procedures provisions as well, even though that is not its stated purpose and does not deal with one of those matters that could reasonably come under the heading of the Intergovernmental Summit on Violence and Child Abuse in Indigenous Communities of the Council of Australian Governments. I think that lie has been exposed.

This government does not seem to be able to grasp the concept that forensic procedures are not performed by courts during bail and sentencing procedures. It appears that the Attorney-General, or one of his staff, decided to use a computer to search the Crimes Act for all references to cultural background—which was a little bit over the top—and prepared amendments to remove their effect without employing the most cursory examination as to their context within the legislation. Not only are these amendments unrelated to the bill; they were not considered by the Senate committee. In truth, if he wanted to expand the bill, it should have been referred back to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to give it an opportunity to amend the bill accordingly—or he could have tried consulting right from the word go.

The amendments should be opposed in any instance, even by the government’s backbench. My colleague in the other place Ms Nicola Roxon, the shadow Attorney-General, did ask the Attorney-General whether he would refer these new measures to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry—a request, as I understand it, he declined. I ask the Minister for Justice and Customs to consider that request again.

As with the introduction of cultural background to the bail and sentencing procedures, it is worth looking at the history of the provisions that the government proposed to amend. These particular references to cultural background which relate to forensic procedures were introduced as part of the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 1997 under the Howard government. That is right—it was the current government that introduced them. Mr Daryl Williams, who was the Attorney-General at the time, had some very interesting things to say about that bill during the debate in the House. In particular, he boasted about its basis on:

... the model Forensic Procedures Bill which was widely circulated for comment to about 600 groups and individuals, representing many interests ...

If the government had consulted on this bill, that would have turned up pretty quickly. It seems to me that it missed it completely. Many of those consulted on the model at that point were not given the same courtesy by the government on this occasion. Indeed, the Senate committee condemned the government for its failure to properly consult, even on the changes.

It really does demonstrate how arrogant and out of touch this government is becoming that it can go from consulting widely to not consulting at all in less than 10 years. When it started this, it consulted widely. It is now at a place where it has decided to junk consultation. It seems to me that the government’s true colours and contempt for the community have been exposed even more since it gained control of the Senate. The Prime Minister said that he would not let control of the Senate go to his head. Clearly, that is exactly what has happened.

Mr Williams also spoke on the many safeguards in the bill to protect the rights of individuals, with particular provisions for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders. That just about says it all. The Attorney-General of the first Howard government was seeking to promote specific safeguards for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. Now the Attorney-General and minister for justice of the last Howard government are removing those exact same safeguards.

Further exposing these fraudulent amendments for what they are is the fact that the government has only just passed legislation specifically dealing with forensic procedures, that is, the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006, which was introduced in June and passed by the Senate in October. I ask the government: if these changes are so necessary, why did you not pick them up when making those other changes specific to forensic procedures?

I do not expect the government to attempt to explain themselves in that regard. I almost hope that they do not because, at every turn in this sorry debate that they have opened their mouths and tried to react, their standing has deteriorated even further. They started with a pretty ridiculous position—this bill—and it has just got worse and worse as they try, in their way, to fix it. The only fix is to get rid of it, quite frankly. It is too late for the government or some of their backbenchers to do the right thing and sink this bill. They are not going to shift. This bill does not belong on our statute books. The minister here knows it and Mr Ruddock knows it as well.

At a time when we should be focusing our minds on finding practical solutions to deal with violence and abuse in Indigenous communities, we have instead had to deal with this blatant attempt to divert attention from the failings of Minister Brough. On that basis, the government should truly be ashamed. I am not going to take up too much more time of the Senate. I think this is an appalling position that the government is putting forward and these amendments should be rejected. Quite frankly, this bill should have been rejected.