Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 462 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory fashioned a scheme without consultation with the Northern Territory legal fraternity. Adult first offenders convicted of property crimes must serve at least 14 days. What constitutes property? It is not somebody's crown jewels; it is a packet of biscuits. A second offence gets you 90 days and a third offence gets you not less than a year. For juveniles between 15 and 17, a second offence carries a mandatory sentence of 28 days. Judges have no choice.

If members think for a minute that this does not have a detrimental effect on the indigenous community, they are having themselves on. Even if this legislation were created with no racist intent, the application of the law has been proven to be such. It will always be such when something like 70 per cent of the people in the Northern Territory are indigenous. The most hideous part of this legislation is its application to young people. We sit here and talk about a new gaol for the ACT. We espouse restorative justice and preventative justice. We talk about alternatives, such as diversionary conferencing. I think one member opposite said that in the Northern Territory there is some choice. The fact is that the courts in the Northern Territory do not have a choice.

It has also been proven that, since the introduction of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory, there has been little effect on the pattern of unlawful entry offences. So, if this was introduced as a deterrent, it has not worked. Quite apart from it being horrendous, it does not work. An article that I have from Darwin states:

How insensitive and how stupid is that? The article further says:

If that is so, how come that kid went to gaol and how come that kid killed himself? What Ms Tucker is talking about here is a law in Australia which is nothing short of horrendous. It is racially discriminatory and it has a horrendous effect on young people - and all we have here is a letter to the Senate inquiry saying, "Let's uphold the sovereignty of the States". As I mentioned in conversation with Mr Kaine today, I have a bit of a problem weighing up which is going to come first - the sovereignty of the State or the sovereignty of the people. I am more interested in saving kids' lives and stopping them from becoming young criminals.

It is well known that, if you throw somebody in the clink, all you will do is make them an even better criminal when they come out. The idea is to stop their offending behaviour through some other method and use gaol as an absolute last resort, not the second resort. I am more interested in saving those kids' lives. We know that Aboriginal people will try to kill themselves if taken away from their community. We know that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .