91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳

Bob Brown: mandatory sentencing is not justice

Australian Greens senator BOB BROWN has been one of the fiercest critics of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. He has introduced a private member's bill to parliament which would override the laws as they apply to juveniles. A Senate inquiry report into his legislation is expected to be released on March 13.

Brown has also criticised the double standard involved in the laws. On March 10, the day after business magnate Alan Bond's release from a WA prison, Brown commented bitterly, "For each million dollars stolen, Bond got a day in jail. For a packet of biscuits, Jamie Wurramurra got a year in jail in the Northern Territory. That's not justice."

Brown spoke to 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly's JONATHAN SINGER on March 9.

Question: What were the reasons for your decision to introduce the bill?

The catalyst for me to act was calls from the Northern Territory indigenous community and the Territory Greens to use federal powers to intervene. I'm sure that approaches had been made to the other parties but, for whatever reason, there was no action.

Even though I'm from Tasmania, this is such an important issue I decided to draw up legislation and bring it into the Senate. In the process of doing that I got the support of the Labor Party and the Democrats.

The main reason I decided to do this is the one that has become abundantly clear to most Australians ... We should not be locking up children, and not least Aboriginal children, for petty crimes. We should not be taking away from the courts their proper function, to determine sentencing of children according to the circumstances of the crime, the child and what is in the best interests of society.

It was clear, in looking at the cases where both indigenous and non-indigenous children were involved, that they were being arbitrarily locked up against the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. The courts did not have available the option to give them rehabilitation, to have conferencing with victims or to put in place other things which would mean the child didn't go to detention but did come back to society better off for a sentence resulting from a petty crime.

Some people have criticised me for saying that this also affects Australia's reputation. It does; I think we should define our reputation more, not less, on the treatment of the first Australians.

Question: How have John Howard and the Liberal Party approached the bill and mandatory sentencing?

First up, they did nothing.

This is a national responsibility — keeping Australia [true to] its international treaty obligations is a responsibility of the government of the day.

The government knew Australia had signed the international Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990 and ratified it in 1991. The convention has been signed by 185 countries; it is one of the most universal declarations of rights.

The government also knew, in 1996 when the WA government passed mandatory sentencing laws, and in 1997 when the Northern Territory administration did, that this was breaching the international convention, but it didn't act. In this situation, the Greens bringing it into parliament and forcing the issue with the government became important.

I'm appalled that it took the loss of life of a young Aboriginal boy in Darwin to really draw the potential destructiveness of mandatory sentencing to the nation's attention and, therefore, bring the government, whether it liked it or not, into the debate.

We now have a process where all government members, all members of parliament, cannot stand aside any longer. They are going to be forced to vote yes or no, or come up with some alternative, in the coming weeks.

Question: And what about the ALP and the Democrats?

The ALP and the Democrats, before the legislation was presented to parliament, co-hosted it. They have maintained that position.

I know there has been some public equivocation by the Labor Party because the ALP in WA, in particular, supports — in fact, introduced — the legislation in 1996. To give the ALP its due, it has now decided to break with the Western Australian position. Nationally, it will support legislation overriding the WA laws as far as they apply to children.

Question: What, though, is the attitude of those two parties to mandatory sentencing for adults?

I can't speak for the other parties on mandatory sentencing. What I can say is mandatory sentencing, as several former High Court judges have now said, has no place in a proper, functioning democracy, where the laws are made by the parliament but the sentencing ought to left in all cases to the courts.

The question of mandatory sentencing of adults for minor crimes will remain, even if the bill goes through parliament. One of the things that should come out of the Senate inquiry is that Australia should legislate to get rid of mandatory sentencing and, in particular, to prevent the mandatory sentencing of young Aboriginal men in the Northern Territory and Western Australia who are being locked up for petty crime.

I'm hopeful we will get unanimous or close to unanimous support for the bill and also that the parliament will go further and extend the legislation to put an end to mandatory sentencing for adults, particularly when it comes to these petty property crimes.

Question: Has the recent increase in public awareness and outcry about mandatory sentencing affected the situation?

If you look at the history of mandatory sentencing, it came about because there was an outcry by people who were concerned about property crime. This was beaten up by the media in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

On the wave of that beat-up, in the lead-up to state and territory elections, the politicians found it convenient to put through these draconian laws on the usual pre-election basis that "law and order" moves win votes.

But the Australian public now knows about mandatory sentencing and the terrible results that can come from it. So I think it's a process of educating the Australian public to reverse the situation and put pressure on the politicians to get rid of mandatory sentencing in the light of the damage done to individual Aboriginal children, to all the children who are caught by this system and to the nation, because what we do to our children is a statement about ourselves.

Question: What do you believe are the next steps in the effort to eliminate mandatory sentencing?

The campaign against mandatory sentencing cannot stop with this legislation. It must continue.

I think we need to concentrate on the fact that hundreds of young people, Aboriginal people, are being locked up for up to a year, at a time in their lives when, in fact, they ought to be getting assistance with growing up in their own culture ... and as part of the wider Australian community.

People shouldn't underestimate the impact that jail has on a young adult. You don't suddenly change in your ability to withstand the influences of jail because you have your 18th birthday.

A continued fight by the community against mandatory sentencing is important. I hope more tragedies aren't needed for that lesson to be brought home.

In an Olympic year the focus will inevitably go beyond the stadium to how Australia treats, rather than celebrates, its indigenous people and their culture.

And something has to be done about mandatory sentencing as a step — a first, small step — towards reconciliation and a reversal of the history of Australia, so that we do celebrate indigenous Australians as the first Australians.