2. Bail and the Remand Population
Proposal 2–1 The Bail Act 1977 (Vic) has a standalone provision that requires bail authorities to consider any ‘issues that arise due to the person’s Aboriginality’, including cultural background, ties to family and place, and cultural obligations. This consideration is in addition to any other requirements of the Bail Act.
Other state and territory bail legislation should adopt similar provisions.
As with all other bail considerations, the requirement to consider issues that arise due to the person’s Aboriginality would not supersede considerations of community safety.
Proposal 2–2 State and territory governments should work with peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to identify service gaps and develop the infrastructure required to provide culturally appropriate bail support and diversion options where needed.
3. Sentencing and Aboriginality
Question 3–1 Noting the decision in Bugmy v The Queen  HCA 38, should state and territory governments legislate to expressly require courts to consider the unique systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when sentencing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders?
If so, should this be done as a sentencing principle, a sentencing factor, or in some other way?
Question 3–2 Where not currently legislated, should state and territory governments provide for reparation or restoration as a sentencing principle? In what ways, if any, would this make the criminal justice system more responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders?
Question 3–3 Do courts sentencing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders have sufficient information available about the offender’s background, including cultural and historical factors that relate to the offender and their community?
Question 3–4 In what ways might specialist sentencing reports assist in providing relevant information to the court that would otherwise be unlikely to be submitted?
Question 3–5 How could the preparation of these reports be facilitated? For example, who should prepare them, and how should they be funded?
4. Sentencing Options
Question 4–1 Noting the incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:
(a) should Commonwealth, state and territory governments review provisions that impose mandatory or presumptive sentences; and
(b) which provisions should be prioritised for review?
Question 4–2 Should short sentences of imprisonment be abolished as a sentencing option? Are there any unintended consequences that could result?
Question 4–3 If short sentences of imprisonment were to be abolished, what should be the threshold (eg, three months; six months)?
Question 4–4 Should there be any pre-conditions for such amendments, for example: that non-custodial alternatives to prison be uniformly available throughout states and territories, including in regional and remote areas?
Proposal 4–1 State and territory governments should work with peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to ensure that community-based sentences are more readily available, particularly in regional and remote areas.
Question 4–5 Beyond increasing availability of existing community-based sentencing options, is legislative reform required to allow judicial officers greater flexibility to tailor sentences?
5. Prison Programs, Parole and Unsupervised Release
Proposal 5–1 Prison programs should be developed and made available to accused people held on remand and people serving short sentences.
Question 5–1 What are the best practice elements of programs that could respond to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples held on remand or serving short sentences of imprisonment?
Proposal 5–2 There are few prison programs for female prisoners and these may not address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander female prisoners. State and territory corrective services should develop culturally appropriate programs that are readily available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander female prisoners.
Question 5–2 What are the best practice elements of programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander female prisoners to address offending behaviour?
Proposal 5–3 A statutory regime of automatic court ordered parole should apply in all states and territories.
Question 5–3 A statutory regime of automatic court ordered parole applies in NSW, Queensland and SA. What are the best practice elements of such schemes?
Proposal 5–4 Parole revocation schemes should be amended to abolish requirements for the time spent on parole to be served again in prison if parole is revoked.
6. Fines and Driver Licences
Proposal 6–1 Fine default should not result in the imprisonment of the defaulter. State and territory governments should abolish provisions in fine enforcement statutes that provide for imprisonment in lieu of unpaid fines.
Question 6–1 Should lower level penalties be introduced, such as suspended infringement notices or written cautions?
Question 6–2 Should monetary penalties received under infringement notices be reduced or limited to a certain amount? If so, how?
Question 6–3 Should the number of infringement notices able to be issued in one transaction be limited?
Question 6–4 Should offensive language remain a criminal offence? If so, in what circumstances?
Question 6–5 Should offensive language provisions be removed from criminal infringement notice schemes, meaning that they must instead be dealt with by the court?
Question 6–6 Should state and territory governments provide alternative penalties to court ordered fines? This could include, for example, suspended fines, day fines, and/or work and development orders.
Proposal 6–2 Work and Development Orders were introduced in NSW in 2009. They enable a person who cannot pay fines due to hardship, illness, addiction, or homelessness to discharge their debt through:
- program attendance;
- medical treatment;
- counselling; or
- education, including driving lessons.
State and territory governments should introduce work and development orders based on this model.
Question 6–7 Should fine default statutory regimes be amended to remove the enforcement measure of driver licence suspension?
Question 6–8 What mechanisms could be introduced to enable people reliant upon driver licences to be protected from suspension caused by fine default? For example, should:
(a) recovery agencies be given discretion to skip the licence suspension step where the person in default is vulnerable, as in NSW; or
(b) courts be given discretion regarding the disqualification, and disqualification period, of driver licences where a person was initially suspended due to fine default?
Question 6–9 Is there a need for regional driver permit schemes? If so, how should they operate?
Question 6–10 How could the delivery of driver licence programs to regional and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities be improved?
7. Justice Procedure Offences—Breach of Community-based Sentences
Proposal 7–1 To reduce breaches of community-based sentences by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, state and territory governments should engage with peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to identify gaps and build the infrastructure required for culturally appropriate community-based sentencing options and support services.
Question 8–1 Noting the link between alcohol abuse and offending, how might state and territory governments facilitate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, that wish to do so, to:
(a) develop and implement local liquor accords with liquor retailers and other stakeholders that specifically seek to minimise harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, for example through such things as minimum pricing, trading hours and range restriction;
(b) develop plans to prevent the sale of full strength alcohol within their communities, such as the plan implemented within the Fitzroy Crossing community?
Question 8–2 In what ways do banned drinkers registers or alcohol mandatory treatment programs affect alcohol-related offending within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities? What negative impacts, if any, flow from such programs?
9. Female Offenders
Question 9–1 What reforms to laws and legal frameworks are required to strengthen diversionary options and improve criminal justice processes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander female defendants and offenders?
10. Aboriginal Justice Agreements
Proposal 10–1 Where not currently operating, state and territory governments should work with peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to renew or develop Aboriginal Justice Agreements.
Question 10–1 Should the Commonwealth Government develop justice targets as part of the review of the Closing the Gap policy? If so, what should these targets encompass?
11. Access to Justice Issues
Proposal 11–1 Where needed, state and territory governments should work with peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to establish interpreter services within the criminal justice system.
Question 11–1 What reforms to laws and legal frameworks are required to strengthen diversionary options and specialist sentencing courts for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?
Proposal 11–2 Where not already in place, state and territory governments should provide for limiting terms through special hearing processes in place of indefinite detention when a person is found unfit to stand trial.
Question 11–2 In what ways can availability and access to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services be increased?
Proposal 11–3 State and territory governments should introduce a statutory custody notification service that places a duty on police to contact the Aboriginal Legal Service, or equivalent service, immediately on detaining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person.
12. Police Accountability
Question 12–1 How can police work better with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to reduce family violence?
Question 12–2 How can police officers entering into a particular Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community gain a full understanding of, and be better equipped to respond to, the needs of that community?
Question 12–3 Is there value in police publicly reporting annually on their engagement strategies, programs and outcomes with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that are designed to prevent offending behaviours?
Question 12–4 Should police that are undertaking programs aimed at reducing offending behaviours in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities be required to: document programs; undertake systems and outcomes evaluations; and put succession planning in place to ensure continuity of the programs?
Question 12–5 Should police be encouraged to enter into Reconciliation Action Plans with Reconciliation Australia, where they have not already done so?
Question 12–6 Should police be required to resource and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategies, where not already in place?
13. Justice Reinvestment
Question 13–1 What laws or legal frameworks, if any, are required to facilitate justice reinvestment initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?