CROSS-BORDER JUSTICE BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2009. Page 1661.)

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (17:07): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate that it will support the second reading of this bill and its passage. The bill will, as described in the minister's second reading explanation, enable South Australia to participate in cross-border justice schemes with both Western Australia and the Northern Territory. These schemes are aimed at delivering better justice services and improving the safety of the communities and regions covered by them.

We are assured that the current proposal includes only the area of the APY lands and their surrounding areas in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The minister's second reading explanation stated that an example of border regions that might be used includes the Kimberley region, and I ask the minister to indicate, in her response, exactly how the Kimberley region could be incorporated in a scheme of this kind, given its primary location within the state of Western Australia.

However, the Liberal Party does agree that particular problems have been identified in the APY lands and their surrounding areas and that the justice system there would be enhanced by the introduction of this bill, which will remove the artificial barriers that currently exist and enable some offenders, some perpetrators of domestic violence and other crimes, to skip over the border and make it more difficult for law enforcement authorities to apprehend them.

I acknowledge that the initial concept for the cross-border justice project, as it was called, arose at a justice roundtable held in June 2003. I understand that the original proponent was the NPY Women's Council, a non-government organisation which provides support and advocacy services for Aboriginal women and which operates on a tri-state model in the area proposed to be covered by this bill. I commend the NPY Women's Council not only for this particular initiative but also for its great ongoing work in support of the victims of domestic violence in this area. It is a group whose work is widely applauded, and I am delighted to see that it is a group which strongly supports the former Howard government's intervention, an intervention which, despite some criticism by members of the Labor Party in this state, is actually continued and supported by the Rudd government—indeed, as it should be.

I am also indebted to a paper entitled 'The Cross-Border Justice Project: Enhancing justice and victim services in the central desert region', prepared by Inspector Ashley Gordon of the SA Police. Inspector Gordon puts the issue in very appropriate prose, as follows:

Gross inefficiencies exist in the Cross Border region due to similar justice services from each respective jurisdiction working separately, sometimes only kilometres apart. For example, South Australia police may be working in a community near the State border, when an incident requiring a police response occurs only kilometres away in another State. They are restrained by legislation from acting, and other police services may have a response time of several hours. In particular, this often leaves victims vulnerable. Sharing infrastructure, in particular police stations, courts and prisons, is seen as an important initiative to reduce costs and streamline services.

Inspector Gordon goes on to say that the Northern Territory police have already built a shared police facility at Kintore near the Western Australian border with a staff of two and WA police have provided an additional police officer. At the time of his paper, they were also planning to build a station at Mutitjulu which is near Yulara.

Likewise, Inspector Gordon says that WA police are presently building a shared facility at Warakurna which will be staffed by Northern Territory police working alongside WA police. In addition to this, WA police have built a station at Warburton staffed by five officers. He mentions the fact that SA Police have recently moved eight police to live permanently at Umuwa and Murputja in the South Australian APY lands and that it is planning to build two new police stations at Amata and Ernabella.

One of the important effects of this increased police presence is that there is an increased willingness on the part of victims to report crime because complainants now know that there is some possibility of timely police action. It is important, I believe, to encourage victims to report crime and, also, for those victims to have the certain knowledge that there will be a response, that action will be taken and that the perpetrators will be brought to justice and cannot simply pop across the border to evade apprehension.

In his paper, Inspector Gordon provided a couple of good examples of why legislation of this kind is needed. He gives two case studies with the names changed. He writes of the case of Dorothy, a young Anangu woman living at Pipalyatjara in the north-western corner of South Australia. She is in a relationship with John. He assaulted her when he was drunk. He continued to do so on several occasions every few months thereafter. At the time of these assaults, Dorothy did not bother to report them to police because she knows that South Australian police are stationed at Marla some 600 kilometres away.

She thought there would be little point in telling the police about it. In any case, every time John does something wrong he flees to Wingellina across the border knowing full well that the South Australian police cannot come and arrest him there. At one stage, Dorothy did see police in Pipalyatjara and a local nurse encouraged her to report a recent assault. She reported the assault. The police took a report and advised that they would arrest John for assault next time they saw him but, as he was in Wingellina, they could not go and get him.

They also told Dorothy that she could take out a restraining order so that John could not assault her again. Police never found John in South Australia. They spoke to WA police about extraditing John back to our state to answer the charges. The nearest WA police were based in Laverton, some 900 kilometres from Wingellina, and only went there every three or four months. They said that the charge was not serious enough to extradite John, that it was too far away, and that they might not find him anyway.

Although there was a restraining order in place, John did not care about that when he got drunk and violent, knowing only too well that the South Australian police would not drive 600 kilometres to enforce such an order. As for Dorothy, she did not bother reporting any further assaults to police, believing that it was a waste of time. Although she received support from the NPY Women's Council, the justice services had failed her as a victim.

That illustration, I think, highlights the need for some legislation to remove these impediments to effective justice. I note that this legislation will require complementary amendments to the commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act and I note that the Law and Justice (Cross Border and Other Amendments) Bill 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives on 19 March this year. I believe the bill was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the federal parliament which produced an interim report on 7 May. I would ask the minister to indicate in her response whether there have been any further developments in relation to the commonwealth legislation.

I note also that, some time ago, the Western Australian parliament passed legislation sufficient to enable it to participate in this proposed scheme. I ask the minister to indicate whether the Northern Territory has either introduced or passed legislation which will enable it to participate in the proposed scheme. I would also ask the minister to indicate whether it is proposed that the area of the Nullarbor Plain which joins both South Australia and Western Australia will be included as a separate area or whether there is any proposal to do so, because the second reading explanation of the minister indicates clearly the cross-border area earlier referred to. There is no suggestion whether, in the Nullarbor area—where there are cross-border issues and reasonably significant indigenous populations—consideration has been given to including that area. I note that on 3 March the Law Society wrote to the Attorney-General expressing reservations about the bill, and I think it is appropriate that the society's concerns be put on the record. The letter states:

The Society's Aboriginal Issues Committee and its Criminal Law Committee have considered the Cross-Border Justice Bill 2008.

It then describes the bill, and the letter continues:

The Society, through its Aboriginal Issues Committee, is aware of the substantial work done by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in response to this Bill and endorses the submissions that it has made in relation to it. The Society's Criminal Law Committee has identified similar concerns. Those concerns relate to the following...

The first is the width of the application of the legislation which states:

The legislation appears to have a wider application and would be required to achieve Parliament's objective. For example, clause 20: 'Connection with a cross-border region' will cover someone who commits an offence anywhere in WA or NT and who happens to be arrested in a cross-border region. It might be that Parliament wants to overcome the extradition process between States, but that should not be a reason for passing such far-reaching legislation.

It continues:

Clause 20 should be restricted in its operation to people suspected etc. of committing offences in the cross-border region...the extension of the operation of the proposed legislation and to people suspected of committing offences...outside the cross-border region (eg, to Mt Gambier, Albany, Broome, Darwin...places nowhere near the region) is too wide.

The Law Society Criminal Law Committee also contends that the bill gives police in one jurisdiction power to arrest without warrant and otherwise use the powers they have in their jurisdiction in another jurisdiction. The letter states:

Cl 20 should not extend to people who happen to live or be arrested in the region...

It queries why clause 18 of the bill should be retrospective and argues that clause 27 should be deleted, stating:

Authorities should be able to prove where they arrested the suspect. This is not the type of matter that is peculiarly within the knowledge of the suspect.

It believes that this clause will reverse the onus which ordinarily applies. Similarly, it says that clause 28 should be deleted as the proposed legislation should not apply to people just because they live in a particular area. The Law Society letter states:

It is not clear whether the 'suspected' (of committing an offence) is adequately defined or managed. The provisions of the Bill are too loose and will be open to abuse if 'suspected' is not appropriately defined.

It also claims that there are obvious jurisdictional concerns with the bill, although it does not identify those particular concerns. I ask that the minister, in her second reading response, address the matters raised by the Law Society. However, in conclusion, I emphasise that the principle of this bill is supported and we do hope that it can be implemented effectively as soon as possible. We look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.