Statement
on Mandatory Sentencing

Professor Alice Tay, President,
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, HREOC Press Conference,
17 February 2000

First of all I'd
like to thank you all for coming to here today. It is timely that we meet
the day before Mr Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations
arrives in Australia. It is from the United Nations that the international
obligations we are discussing today are sourced.

As a nation, Australia
is committed to the active protection of human rights in East Timor. These
human rights are derived from the same obligations I have just mentioned.

However, Australia's
mandatory sentencing laws mean that we violate the same international
standards we are working so vigorously to protect in East Timor, less
than an hour's flight away from Darwin.

It's quite unusual
for us to call directly on the federal government for urgent action and
it's been quite a while since we've done so.

However, the issue
of mandatory sentencing has been of great concern to the Commission since
1992 when it was first introduced in Western Australia in 1992.

We have consistently
opposed mandatory sentencing and we continue to do today.

Before I hand over
to my colleagues Social Justice Commissioner Bill Jonas and Human Rights
Commissioner Chris Sidoti, there are a few points I am compelled to make
as President of the Human Rights Commission.

• As stated in
  many media reports over the past week, mandatory sentencing laws violate
  Australia's international human rights obligations.

In particular,
they contravene article nine of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights which states that all offenders shall not be
subject to arbitrary detention. This covenant was ratified by Australia
in 1980.

Mandatory sentencing
laws also violate the international minimum standards for the sentencing
of juveniles. These are clearly set out in the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child or CROC, which was ratified by Australia in
1990.

These International
treaties are binding on Australia and it is the federal government's
responsibility to fulfil its international obligations.

• Mandatory sentencing
  laws are contrary to the principles of justice, which call for punishments
  to be appropriate to the offence and the offender.

In the case
of children, detention should only be considered as the last resort. Mandatory
sentencing makes it the only resort.

The best interests
of the child must be a primary consideration when making sentencing
decisions. These laws take away a young person's right to a variety
of sentencing options.

Only a judge who
can choose from a range of sentencing options is equipped to consider
the best interests of the child.

• Mandatory sentencing
  does not work.

While little
detailed Australian research has been conducted in assessing its effectiveness,
studies in the USA indicate that mandatory penalties prevent little or
no crime.

There is no evidence
to suggest that these laws have made a significant impact on crime statistics
in either the Northern Territory or Western Australia. The precise preventative
effects of mandatory sentencing laws are still being disputed.

• Mandatory sentencing
  diverts scarce resources away crime prevention to the most expensive
  option of detention.

The latest
"Trends and Issues" paper published in December by the Australian Institute
of Criminology estimates that it costs around $60,000 to keep a prisoner
imprisoned for one year and $200, 000 to build just one new cell.

The enormous government
investment required by mandatory sentencing laws would return a much
better yield in terms of crime prevention if it were invested in prevention
policies in areas such as education.

This money could
be used to fund real programs and policies which provided assistance
to the disadvantaged young people affected by mandatory sentencing today.

• Conclusion.

It is certainly
clear that the Western Australian and Northern Territory governments have
no intention of repealing these punitive and inhumane laws. As the Commonwealth
has the ultimate responsibility to protect human rights, the Human Rights
Commission strongly urges the Federal Government to legislate so that
these offensive laws are annulled.

It is appropriate
for Australia's national parliament to legislate to ensure that, in
every state and territory, the treatment of children and young offenders
conforms with Australia's international obligations.

Last
updated 1 December 2001