Mr RUDDOCK (Attorney-General) (5:24 PM) —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.

Mr Kerr —Very.

Mr RUDDOCK —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.