Chapter 3
Issues
3.1
The committee received two submissions to this inquiry, from the
following organisations:
3.2
Both submissions focussed on the amendments in Schedules 1 and 2. No submissions
were received in relation to Schedule 3.
Support for the Bill and the Cross Border Justice Scheme
3.3
The WA Department of the Attorney-General expressed strong support for
the Bill, noting that it is 'pivotal'[1]
for the successful implementation of the Cross Border Justice Scheme (the
scheme) later in 2009.
3.4
The submission provided useful background on the scheme, noting that it
had its origins in a meeting held in Alice Springs in 2003 between
representatives from justice agencies, the judiciary, police and community
groups.
3.5
At that meeting, representatives of the NPY Women's Council urged the
governments of WA, SA and the NT to solve the problem of offenders using the
state/territory borders to evade police or the criminal justice system. The
Women's Council highlighted significant safety and security issues in the
region, including high levels of family violence, sexual abuse, substance
misuse and relatively limited access to justice and other services.
3.6
The Governments of the three jurisdictions initiated the Cross-border
Justice (CBJ) project in response to these issues. The submission explains that
the objective of the CBJ project is to minimise the effect of borders in the region
for the purposes of law enforcement and delivery of justice services. It will enable
police, magistrates, fines enforcement agencies, community corrections officers
and prisons of one jurisdiction to deal with offences that may have occurred in
another of the participating jurisdictions.
3.7
The CBJ scheme will not officially commence until complementary legislation
has been proclaimed in WA, SA and the NT.
3.8
The submission highlights that the CBJ project is without precedent and
has been 'an impressive exercise in collaboration' and co-operation between the
jurisdictions concerned and the Commonwealth Government.'[2]
The WA Department's submission concludes that the CBJ project:
...was established in response to a genuine community need.
Successful development and implementation will have a real and positive impact
on the lives of the women and children in the cross-border communities.
3.9
The committee also notes advice from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's
department in response to a question taken on notice, that:
-
the former Attorney-General wrote to his State and territory
colleagues in April 2006 consulting them on the proposed SEPA amendments, and
all jurisdictions supported the proposal; and
-
in February 2009, the current Attorney-General also circulated a
draft of the proposed amendments to the States and territories, and no issues
or concerns were raised in relation to the correspondence.[3]
Concerns of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement
3.10
The committee also received a submission from the Aboriginal Legal
Rights Movement (ALRM).[4]
This submission did not raise any specific concerns about the direct effects of
the Bill. Concerning the Bill, the ALRM stated that it made no submission in
relation to the schedule 1 amendments, other than they appear to achieve what
the Explanatory Memorandum specifies. Commentary on schedule 2 was confined to
how well audio-visual links were working on NPY lands.
3.11
The majority of the ALRM's submission focussed on the proposed South
Australian legislation.
3.12
The ALRM's focus on the South Australian legislation presents a
particular difficulty for the committee as it is well out of scope of the
committee's inquiry into the Bill. Further, the detail and operation of the
South Australian legislation is a matter for the South Australian Parliament
alone. The committee does not consider it would be appropriate for a Senate
committee to either comment on or seek to influence such legislation, and so
confines itself to drawing the submission to the attention of the South
Australian Attorney-General.
3.13
One area raised by the ALRM that the committee considers it can
reasonably flag is the question of custody notifications. The ALRM submitted
that it was unclear what effect the Cross-Border legislation will have on
compulsory custody notifications, stating that none of the Bills comprising the
scheme have yet made mention of it. The ALRM argued that the Commonwealth
Crimes Act 1914 imposes a detailed obligation upon Commonwealth officers
investigating Commonwealth offences to notify the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Legal Service of the arrest of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
person and suggested that this model should be a benchmark for the States and
Territories.[5]
3.14
The committee has not investigated this proposal, nor does it make any
recommendation in this regard as it is clearly outside of the scope of the
Bill. Nonetheless, it draws the matter to the attention of the relevant
jurisdictions for attention if this is considered to be warranted.
Committee comment
3.15
As noted by the WA Attorney-General's Department in its submission, the
Cross Border Justice scheme to be implemented by Western Australia, South
Australia and the Northern Territory was established in response to a genuine
community need. Its implementation has the potential to have a real and positive
impact on the lives of the women and children in the cross-border communities.
This Bill facilitates the operation of the scheme and is seen as 'pivotal' to
its success. As such, the committee is strongly of the view that the Bill
should be supported.
Recommendation 1
3.16
The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Senator Trish Crossin
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page