![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
![]() |
Voices Behind the Razor Wire
The Sansbury Association Inc. and Patricia Tresize
Sansbury Association and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, November 1994.
107 Recommendations - Have They Been Implemented?
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and Aboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee, September 1994.
Review by Chris Cunneen
Voices Behind the Razor Wire is a response to the South Australian Government's 1993 implementation report on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It deals specifically with recommendations relating to prison experience and is written by the Sansbury Association and Patricia Tresize. The Sansbury Association is made up of Aboriginal prisoners at Yatala gaol in South Australia. Tresize at the time was a lawyer with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement who dealt with prison issues. The report provides a first hand account of how Aboriginal prisoners at Yatala are experiencing whatever changes are said to have occurred as a result of the Royal Commission recommendations. It is clear from the report that a new State Government in 1993 and a new regime in prisons has outweighed any progressive changes which might have been implemented as a result of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
Voices Behind the Razor Wire deals with issues specific to Yatala, yet anyone familiar with contemporary conditions in prisons across Australia will immediately recognise common themes. As the members of Sansbury note, prison is about power and it is `this day to day power over the lives of prisoners which is the most common source of complaint' (p.1). The issue of dehumanisation and the lack of dignity afforded prisoners is one which runs through the report covering a range of complaints from the way requests by prisoners are dealt with to the lack of accountability for actions taken by prison officers.
Specific issues are also mentioned including concern about the ineffectiveness of cultural awareness training for prison officers; problems in enabling prisoners to attend funerals; restrictions on the meetings of the Sansbury Association; the functioning of the prisoner assessment committee and parole board; and issues relating to home detention and day leave.
The South Australian `Truth in Sentencing' legislation, which came into operation in 1994, is clearly a source of concern with its abolition of remissions for good behaviour and its increased role for the parole board. The new political rhetoric on prison has stressed work for prisoners. However the reality has been that work opportunities have actually decreased as prison numbers have risen and funding cuts have been instituted.
107 Recommendations - Have They Been Implemented? is a joint report from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and the Aboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee which also responds to the South Australian Government's 1993 implementation report. The joint report argues that at a fundamental level the requirement that negotiation and consultation with Aboriginal communities and organisations has not been adequately met - either because organisations such as police and corrections have been resistant or because the type of consultation engaged in has been minimal, tokenistic and reactive (p.5).
The joint report is divided into three parts. The first section deals with the role of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) and the Aboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee (AJAC). Of particular importance is the transformation of the AJAC from a State Government-based committee into an Aboriginal-controlled and independent committee.
The second section of the report considers a number of specific issues including corrections, juvenile justice, land, liquor licensing and prisoner health. There is inadequate space in this review to summarise the points raised, so I will restrict myself to some comments on juvenile justice. The report notes that new South Australian juvenile justice legislation came into effect in the beginning of 1994. The new legislation abolished the previous panel system and replaced it with a system of police cautions and police referral to family group conferences as an alternative to an appearance in the Children's Court. The report acknowledges that at the time of writing it was too early to see what effects the new system was having in relation to Aboriginal young people. However it is noted that the ,new legislation has given the police enormous discretionary powers without, as it appears, any form of control or vigilance over their discretion' (p.23).
The final section of the report considers in more detail the 107 Royal Commission recommendations which the South Australian State Government maintains it has implemented. The ALRM and the AJAC question the extent of the implementation of many of the recommendations including those relating to dealing with intoxicated persons, police bail, the availability of presentence reports, commencement of proceedings for breaches of non-custodial orders, the availability of non-custodial sentencing options, consultation with communities concerning sentencing alternatives, fine default options, the delivery of medical services in police custody, and many others. The report concludes that the recommendations have not been fully implemented either because of improper consultation or through failure to comprehend the intent of the recommendations.
Both reports provide a counterpoint to official reactions to the implementation of Royal Commission recommendations. The reports provide an important Aboriginal perspective on what needs to be done for the recommendations of the Royal Commission to be adequately addressed.
Chris Cunneen teaches law at the University of Sydney.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1995/21.html