Site navigation

The Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Ten Years On: The Ongoing Role of Government

Presentation to the Victorian
Aboriginal Justice Forum, 20 September 2002

Darren Dick, Director- Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Unit, Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission

Acknowledgements
-traditional owners (Wurundjuree people); those present.

I am here representing
Dr William Jonas, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner. Dr Jonas was unable to attend today due to a range of other
commitments. He asked that I begin by thanking the Victorian Department
of Justice for inviting the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
to attend this morning and present to you our views on the status of government
progress in addressing Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and related issues.

Before I do that,
I'm going to provide some context with a brief overview of the role and
functions of the Social Justice Commissioner.

The position of Social
Justice Commissioner was created in 1992 within the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, largely in response to 2 major inquiries which
had reported in 1991. The first was the Royal Commission into Aboriginal
Deaths in Custody and the second, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission's National Inquiry into Racist Violence. Both of these reports
identified systemic discrimination against Aborigines and Torres Strait
Islanders as existing across many areas of Australian society. Both reports
also identified a need for ongoing mechanisms to monitor the human rights
situation faced by Indigenous Australians.

Accordingly, the
role of Social Justice Commissioner was established to provide this ongoing
evaluative mechanism.

The Commissioner
is empowered with a broad set of functions:

1. The production
of an annual report to the federal Parliament on the status of the exercise
and enjoyment of human rights by Indigenous people - the Social Justice
Report;

2. The production of an annual report to the federal Parliament on the
impact of the Native Title Act 1993 on the exercise and enjoyment
of Indigenous people's human rights - the Native Title Report;

3. The conduct of activities which promote respect for, and enjoyment
of, Indigenous people's human rights through research, education and
other means; as well as which promote discussion and awareness of the
human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and

4. Examining enactments and proposed enactments to see whether they
recognise and protect the human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people.

The provisions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Act 1986 also make clear that these functions may be exercised in
relation to matters at the state and territory levels, not just the federal
level.

Under the legislation
establishing the Human Rights Commission, the Social Justice Commissioner
can also intervene in court cases to raise significant human rights issues
at stake in litigation. The Social Justice Commissioner has done this
twice so far - in the High Court native title cases of Miriwung Gajerrong
and Yorta Yorta. The Commissioner can also apply to the Court to appear
before it during a trial as amicus curie, or friend of the court,
to again provide human rights expertise to assist with the Court's deliberations.

The main focus of
the Commissioner's work, however, is inevitably the annual reports to
the federal Parliament - the Social Justice Report and the Native
Title Report. These have come to be seen by many as a 'report card'
on governmental progress towards achieving social justice for Indigenous
peoples.

What I am going to
focus on today are issues that have been raised in the past two Social
Justice Reports for 2000 and 2001 and which are relevant to deaths
in custody issues. Broadly speaking, the 2000 report sets out a human
rights framework for reconciliation - identifying the key pillars which
governments must focus on to achieve meaningful reconciliation.

The 2001 report,
which is the most current report - the 2002 report will be submitted to
the federal Attorney-General later this year - evaluates national progress
towards implementing reconciliation and seeks to draw lessons from the
implementation process for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths
in Custody. The report provides an overview of developments in the ten
years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

The 2001 report also
looks at welfare reform policies and the mutual obligation approach, gives
examples of Indigenous community capacity building and governance initiatives,
as well as reviewing developments in the juvenile justice systems in the
Northern Territory and Western Australia.

As many of you will
no doubt acknowledge, while these issues are quite diverse they are not
easily separated. And that is one of the main challenges that you no doubt
face in this forum - how do you address over-representation in criminal
justice processes when it is so integrally linked to processes of governance
and community capacity building, to welfare reform and to the broader,
systemic issues which the reconciliation process is meant to address?
I will leave you today with some suggestions from a human rights perspective
that the Social Justice Commissioner has identified as needing to take
place in order to more effectively draw these varying strands together.

The issues raised
in the 2 latest social justice reports are about to receive a great deal
more coverage and consideration at the national level due to a Senate
committee inquiry which has now been established in response to the recommendations
of the Social Justice Report 2001. Basically, the 2001 report makes
some very critical comments on the inadequate progress towards reconciliation.
It recommends that a Senate inquiry be established to examine the adequacy
of the federal government's response to key documents about reconciliation
- including the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
and the 2000 and 2001 Social Justice Reports.

This inquiry was
established last month on a motion by Senator Ridgeway and the support
of the opposition parties, and will report in March 2003. In addition
to examining the adequacy of the federal government's response to the
documents of reconciliation, it will also be examining the adequacy of
benchmarks and targets adopted at the inter-governmental level under the
framework of the Council of Australian Governments and various Ministerial
Councils, as well as the extent to which government agencies have reviewed
their policy development processes against the documents of reconciliation
and have reviewed existing funding arrangements. I have brought a copy
of the terms of reference for the inquiry and will leave them here for
your information.

In the remainder
of the time left to me, I am going to talk about the Commissioner's concerns
about developments in the ten years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal
Deaths in Custody. There are four main areas that I want to consider:

• First, something
  which you are no doubt familiar with but which is vital nonetheless,
  is to look at exactly what has happened in the past 10 years in relation
  to deaths in custody and the over-representation of Indigenous people,
  and to see where we are today;
  
• Second, as I
  understand it, you are about to embark on a renewed process to review
  implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations in Victoria.
  So having identified what the current situation is it is then important
  to ask what went wrong with the implementation process for the Royal
  Commission and how can we learn from it, so that the Justice Agreement
  process does not repeat or perpetuate these mistakes;
  
• Third, it is
  important to look at the broader context or the underlying issues as
  the Royal Commission termed them, which must accompany reforms to criminal
  justice processes to make any change lasting; and
  
• Fourth, to conclude
  I want to challenge you to look at these issues from a slightly different
  perspective, namely those of Indigenous communities. A significant feature
  of the Social Justice Commissioner's work over recent years has been
  promoting the legitimacy of recognising and building the capacity of
  Indigenous community structures for governance, including justice mechanisms.
  So I will talk a bit about that.

i) What has happened
in the 10 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody?

So first, what has
happened in the 10 years (now 11 years) since the Royal Commission reported
in 1991?

The most tangible
indicator of progress since the Royal Commission is the extent of Indigenous
contact with the criminal justice system. Has the rate of over-representation
of Indigenous people and the number of deaths in custody been reduced?
We could have reasonably expected that lasting improvements for both of
these measures would have been realised within a timeframe of ten years
and following the injection of more than $400 million of additional federal
funding to meet this objective.

This has not happened.
Indigenous people continue to be grossly over-represented in criminal
justice processes, and the rate of this over-representation has in fact
worsened - rather than improved - since the Royal Commission.

The number of Indigenous
prisoners increased at an average rate of 8% per year between 1991 - 1999,
compared with an increase in the non-Indigenous prisoner population of
3% per year on average. This has meant that in 1999 Indigenous prisoners
made up 20% of the total prisoner population. This compares to 14% in
1991. Put differently, a group that constitutes just over 2% of the total
population now consistently provides 20% of the country's prisoners.

The ratio of Indigenous
to non-Indigenous prisoners has also regressed since 1991. The most recent
statistics, for the March 2002 quarter, indicate that Indigenous people
are incarcerated at 14.7 times the non-Indigenous rate. The figure for
Victoria is 11.4 times the non-Indigenous rate - making Victoria the second
best of all states and territories for which data is collected. [1]
I should add that the use of the term 'second best' is not meant to be
a compliment as it is still a disgraceful situation.

The rates for Indigenous
juveniles are no better. The rates of juvenile detention have fallen significantly
in the twenty years from 1981 to 2000, by nearly half for males and nearly
two thirds for females. Despite this, Indigenous juveniles remain grossly
over-represented in juvenile corrections and the rate of over-representation
has increased.

In 2000, Indigenous
juveniles were in juvenile corrections at a rate 15.5 times that of non-Indigenous
juveniles, compared to 13 times in 1993 [2]. Since 1997,
Indigenous juveniles in corrections have consistently made up approximately
42% of the total juvenile detention population [3] .

Perhaps most worrying
of all, however, is the rise in imprisonment of Indigenous women in the
decade since the Royal Commission. The total number of Indigenous female
prisoners on a national basis increased by 262% between 1991 and 1999.
This compares to a rise of 185% in the total female prisoner population
[4] .

The rate of imprisonment
for Indigenous women has also nearly doubled between 1991 and 1999 from
104 to 207 per 100,000 population [5]. It has since increased
further to 270 Indigenous women per 100,000 in the March 2002 Quarter.
The gravity of this situation is also indicated by the fact that at the
end of the March 2002 quarter, Indigenous women were incarcerated at a
rate 20.2 times that of non-Indigenous women. In Victoria the rate is
22.4 times the non-Indigenous rate. This rate of over-representation for
Indigenous women (compared to total women) is significantly higher than
the rate for Indigenous men (compared to total men). The ratio of indigenous
female imprisonment is also comparable to the rate of imprisonment for
non-Indigenous males. This is despite imprisonment generally being a male
phenomenon, with males comprising approximately 94% of the total prison
population. [6]

Yet despite this,
Aboriginal women remain largely invisible to policy makers and program
designers with very little attention devoted to their specific situation
and needs. This is of critical importance, particularly because of the
impact that imprisonment has on Indigenous families and communities (especially
through separation from children).

This is a major challenge
for this Aboriginal Justice Forum. It is too often assumed that as the
raw number of Indigenous women affected is small that it is not a problem.
Alternatively, it simply goes by unnoticed and slips through the cracks.
The Social Justice Commissioner is currently conducting research looking
broadly at how government agencies address issues relating to Indigenous
women in corrections, and we would certainly encourage you to make this
a real and substantial area of review as part of your activities. We would
also note that the Royal Commission recommendations do not address these
issues very well themselves, and are in need of updating in this regard.

The Royal Commission's
central finding was that Indigenous people did not die in custody at a
greater rate than non-Indigenous people but in proportion to their size
of the custodial population. Given the above figures on incarceration
and the increasing rates of over-representation over the past 10 years,
it follows that Indigenous deaths in custody are likely to have continued
during the past decade at a substantial rate and one similar to that in
the decade leading up to the Royal Commission.

A total of 115 Indigenous
people died in custody in the period from 1990 to 1999, compared to 110
people in the period from 1980 to 1989 [7]. This constituted
a slight fall in the average annual rate of Indigenous deaths in custody
from 4.4 persons per 100,000 to 3.8 [8]. But over the
ten years from 1990 to 2000, 18% of all people who died in custody were
Indigenous. [9]

Ten years on we should
not be facing a situation where rates of over-representation have worsened
like this and deaths in custody have not been significantly reduced. As
the Social Justice Commissioner noted in the Social Justice Report
2001, 'The lack of concern and urgency from governments to rectify
this is distressing. As the Royal Commission stated, this situation would
not be tolerated if it occurred in the non-Indigenous community'.

ii) What can we
learn from the implementation process for the Royal Commission?

So what can we learn
from the implementation process for the Royal Commission to date?

The responsibility
for implementing the Commission's findings rested with governments and
their service delivery agencies. The first recommendation of the Royal
Commission made clear that governments should do this through a process
agreed in partnership and after consultation with Indigenous organisations.
$400 million was allocated by the Commonwealth government for the implementation
of the Royal Commission's recommendations. Each jurisdiction produced
an annual implementation report for a period of 6 years. Towards the end
of this process there was also a national Ministerial Summit to examine
the status of the implementation of the recommendations.

In the Social
Justice Report 2001 the Commissioner noted that 'this implementation
process, while superficially appearing extensive, has been spectacularly
unsuccessful.'

In particular, the
Commissioner identified a number of what he called 'fundamental flaws'
in the reporting process. In brief, these are as follows. First, it did
not result in accurate evaluations of progress at any level due to the
lack of independence and evaluation in each annual government report.

Second, governments
generally took a 'public relations approach' to the reporting process,
re-packaging existing programs as an implementation response at the end
of each year. The NSW Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council, in its review
of the NSW government's implementation process, nominates this as the
principal problem with implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
This is because of the 'decentralised and retrospective nature' of the
government reporting process:

responding to a
recommendation at the end of a reporting period has meant that agencies
have responded with activity that most closely matches recommendations
rather than pro- actively examining how to implement the specific requirements
of a recommendation. [10]

This makes a critical
examination of the response meaningless and does not allow long term planning.
This approach has also meant, and this is the third problem, that the
implementation process has been piecemeal and ad hoc. There have not been
whole-of-government responses to all the recommendations, integrating
programs across departments and between levels of government to ensure
coordinated outcomes.

The fourth problem
is that the focus of the reporting process has not been on an assessment
of pre-agreed, negotiated outcomes which measure real achievements. It
has been simply responding to individual recommendations in isolation
from the rest of the report [11] . Ultimately, it means
that the 'implementation report' is nothing more than a piece of empty
government rhetoric, and is treated by government as an end in itself.

In reviewing 96 deaths
in custody in the first 7 years after the Royal Commission, the previous
Social Justice Commissioner - Mick Dodson - identified a six stage plan
for implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations by government
departments. The 6 stages are:

1) Reviewing current
activities;

2) Developing policies and programs;

3) Setting goals or targets;

4) Allocating responsibility for implementation;

5) Ensuring adequate communication and training supports the plans;
and

6) Establishing evaluation mechanisms. [12]

The implementation
process for the Royal Commission has rarely moved beyond this first stage.

Accompanying this
flawed process of reporting over the last decade has been a nationwide
trend towards tougher 'law and order' policies. Such 'tough on crime'
approaches to criminal justice have ranged from zero tolerance in the
Northern Territory to truth in sentencing in NSW, to crackdowns on activities
in public spaces across the country with the introduction of alcohol dry
zones (such as recently introduced in Adelaide) to laws which provide
police with additional powers to move people along or remove them to a
safe house for their own safety, right through to provisions allowing
police to remove people who are drunk into protective custody to the continued
prosecution for summary offences such as offensive behaviour and language.

The impact of this
approach has contradicted efforts to address Indigenous over-representation
in custody. At the same time as 'promoting or reporting on activities
which aim to reduce Aboriginal contact with the criminal justice system…
major government initiatives, policy and legislation seem to increase
that contact' [13]. The most obvious and offensive example
of this is the existence of mandatory sentencing regimes in the Northern
Territory and Western Australia alongside government commitments to enforce
the principle of imprisonment as a sanction of last resort (which is recommendation
92 of the Royal Commission).

The Social Justice
Report 2001 provides examples from across the country of this problem,
including one from Victoria citing recently completed analysis of police
records in Victoria from 1993 to 1997. These demonstrate that many of
the key concerns identified by the Royal Commission have not been addressed.
In particular, public drunkenness and summary offences such as indecent
language, resisting arrest and offensive behaviour remain a significant
factor in Indigenous over-representation in custody, accounting for almost
one quarter of all processings of Indigenous people during the period.
[14]

Indigenous offenders
were also more likely to be dealt with through more formal processes such
as arrest, rather than through cautioning, across all offence categories
[15]. In relation to summary offences, for example,
Indigenous juveniles were arrested 36.1% of the time, compared to just
15.4% for non-Indigenous juveniles; with Indigenous juveniles cautioned
just 4.6% of the time compared to 35.6% for non-Indigenous juveniles [16].
This is despite recommendation 239 of the Royal Commission (for police
to give preference to forms of processing other than arrest) and the existence
of Victorian government instructions to police that alleged offenders
should be processed according to the seriousness of the offence, with
arrest only to be used in extreme circumstances and as a last resort.

The inadequate level
of implementation of the recommendations by all governments, accompanied
by the introduction of regressive laws and policies that contradict the
main goals of the Royal Commission, have most certainly contributed to
the lack of progress in addressing Indigenous over-representation in the
criminal justice process over the past decade. Efforts need to be redoubled
to turn this situation around across the country.

iii) Addressing
the broader context of Indigenous marginalisation and socio-economic disadvantage

The Royal Commission
continually emphasised the central importance of addressing the underlying
issues which contribute to the likelihood of contact by Indigenous people
with the criminal justice system. Addressing the racial and economic exclusion
faced by Indigenous people - through the oppressive control exercised
by the State over every aspect of their lives and the resultant entrenched
socio-economic disadvantage - was the longer term imperative identified
by the Royal Commission, necessary for any change to be lasting.

Time and again since
the Royal Commission, all governments have agreed on the necessity to
address the underlying causes of over-representation for long term change
and have committed themselves to this purpose as a matter of urgency and
priority.

At the National Ministerial
Summit on Deaths in Custody in 1997, for example, all governments except
the NT agreed:

To address the
over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system…
in partnership with Indigenous peoples, (by developing) strategic plans
for the coordination of Commonwealth, State and territory funding and
service delivery for Indigenous programs and services, including working
towards the development of multilateral agreements between Commonwealth,
State and Territory governments and Indigenous peoples and organisations
... The focus of these plans will address: underlying social, economic
and cultural issues; justice issues; customary law; law reform; funding
levels and will include: jurisdictional targets for reducing the rate
of over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice
system; planning mechanisms; methods of service delivery; monitoring
and evaluation. [17]

State governments
have resisted attempts to specify a timeframe for the coordination of
Commonwealth - State funding and service delivery arrangements and the
development of multi-lateral agreements, or even, as proposed by the federal
Attorney-General, to commit to the resolution to the 'prompt' development
of strategic plans for such coordination. It is now 5 years since the
Ministerial Summit and there don't appear to be multilateral agreements
or detailed benchmarks - negotiated appropriately with Indigenous peoples
- in any State or territory (perhaps with the exception of Queensland
under the 'Ten Year Partnerships' program and the outcomes identified
in the Justice Agreement) despite the Justice Agreement framework.

The Ministerial Summit
commitment was also not the first such commitment that had been made to
coordination of service delivery, reduction of Indigenous disadvantage
and participation of Indigenous organisations. The National Commitment
to improved outcome in the delivery of programs and services for Aboriginal
peoples and Torres Strait Islanders had been made by the Council of
Australian Governments in 1992 [18]. It committed governments
to negotiate national benchmarks and targets, and to put into place adequate
statistical collection, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms after consultation
and with the participation of Indigenous communities and organisations.
A revised national commitment was made by the Council of Australian Governments
in November 2000 through their National Communiqué on reconciliation
[19]. The Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement also
makes this commitment.

To date, these commitments
have not been implemented. Government programs and inter-governmental
coordination continue to lack sufficient accountability and transparency.
Many Indigenous people remain justifiably sceptical of the nice words
in documents such as the recent spate of justice agreements across the
country. Very few of these agreements, for example, have reached the stage
of specifying detailed targets and plans of action.

In addition, we have
seen very little response and action at any level of government
to address the recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.
These recommendations, and those of the Social Justice Commissioner's
2000 report, are now the subject of a Senate inquiry. I would suggest
to you that they raise a number of matters of integral concern to this
forum and that this Forum ought to push for the development of a formalised,
public policy framework for responding to reconciliation at the State
level and in a holistic manner.

iv) The importance
of governance and community capacity building - justice perspectives

A focus on these
broader structural issues would also lead to greater consideration of
governance and capacity building processes in Indigenous communities.
The Social Justice Commissioner has placed particular emphasis on this
issue. At a conference earlier this year, titled 'Indigenous Governance',
the Commissioner also mapped out the relevance of governance and community
capacity building processes in responding to the justice agenda.

In brief, the Commissioner
has argued that:

• First, Governance
  processes and the development of Indigenous community capacity are essential
  for achieving meaningful change into the future.

In setting out a
human rights framework for reconciliation, the Social Justice Report
2000 noted that addressing Indigenous marginalisation is a pre-condition
for Indigenous people to be able to enjoy basic citizenship entitlements.
Indigenous participation in decision-making is crucial to achieve this.
But reconciliation must go beyond simply providing equality of opportunity
in terms of 'sameness'. It must provide for the acceptance, recognition
and celebration of the unique, distinct societies and cultural characteristics
of first Australians.

The report also noted
that implementing measures to overcome Indigenous disadvantage, while
certainly a great challenge, requires no great innovation from an institutional
or constitutional perspective. The more difficult part of the process
is changing decision-making and service delivery processes to accommodate
Indigenous cultural characteristics and aspirations, including through
supporting and rebuilding the capacity for Indigenous self-government
and autonomy.

• Second, the Commissioner
  has argued that community justice mechanisms are an integral component
  of Indigenous governance.

Processes of separation
through the criminal justice, juvenile justice and care and protection
systems, combined with dysfunctional behaviour such as violence and abuse
in communities, are the hard edge where the lack of equality and extreme
marginalisation of Indigenous people in Australian society is felt the
most.

Historically and
at the present time, the criminal justice and care and protection systems
operate as a key agent for the management of inequality in Australian
society. The criminal justice system, for example, is extremely poor at
dealing with the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and makes a negligible
contribution to addressing the consequences of crime in the community.
One of the consequences of this, and a vital factor that is often overlooked,
is that Indigenous victims of crime and communities are poorly served
by the current system.

Accordingly, the
current system disadvantages Indigenous people from both ends. It has
a deleterious effect on Indigenous communities through over-representation
of Indigenous people in custody, in large part due to historically derived
disadvantage and ongoing systemic discrimination, combined with the lack
of attention it gives to the high rate of Indigenous victimisation, particularly
through violence and abuse in communities. Reform to criminal justice
processes, including through community justice initiatives, must be responsive
to these factors.

• And this leads
  to the third proposition, that not only are community justice mechanisms
  necessary, but they must be accompanied by a return of control and decision-making
  processes to Indigenous communities if they are to lead to marked improvements
  in the situation faced by Indigenous people.

The Social Justice
Commissioner has argued that there currently exists an overly restrictive
level of control by government of Aboriginal people. It is a different
type of control than the system of reservations, missions and forcible
removal policies that existed during the assimilation period. Instead,
it is based on a perpetuation of the marginalised position of Indigenous
people, combined with a denial of any collective or historical dimension
to Indigenous people's experiences, and through the steadfast refusal
of government to relinquish control over decision-making processes, be
it through the tied nature of ATSIC funding or the refusal to entertain
any form of differential treatment or cultural pluralism.

Similarly, to date
it is fair to say many Indigenous community justice initiatives have emerged
as a crisis management response to the inadequacies of the current system.
They seek to deal with a situation, however fragmentary or temporarily,
in order to avoid contact with formal criminal justice processes, over
which there is a great level of mistrust. Such community-based processes
are generally an add-on to the existing system - tolerated and allowed
to operate in tandem with the mainstream system, yet not given the legitimacy
or support necessary for them to challenge the fundamental basis of the
mainstream system or result in any reconfiguration of relationships and
responsibilities. Power is ultimately retained by the relevant authorities
within the formal system.

It is necessary to
alter the current situation and seek to change the power dynamic so that
it is more equitable. There needs to be recognition from governments of
the legitimacy of Indigenous community justice and governance structures,
with efforts directed towards supporting, enhancing and in some cases
reconstituting or recreating these systems. The recently introduced circle
sentencing trial in NSW, as well as the Aboriginal Courts here in Shepparton
and in Queensland are excellent examples of the type of recognition necessary.
There remains much potential in terms of recognition of customary law,
and the establishment of greater Indigenous community control over matters
integrally related to justice outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, at
the Human Rights Commission we are aware that these are weighty words
and that they are difficult issues. But at core, we also have to acknowledge
that the current situation is one with a dark history and that justice
is owed to Indigenous communities as a consequence.

When the Social Justice
Commissioner held regional launches across the country for his latest
social justice report there were a number of people who spoke at these
launches who really brought home what is at stake. One respected Aboriginal
man in Western Australia said that he looked forward to growing old and
being considered an elder, and living in peace - not having to worry whether
his kids will be pulled up by police or subject to any form of harassment.
'Living in peace' is how he described his vision. Another person, at the
Melbourne launch in fact, stated that they believed that things are getting
harder for Aboriginal people in communities. These are the realities that
have to be acknowledged and worked towards.

I hope that this
presentation stimulates you and motivates you to that task. The Social
Justice Commissioner continues to take an interest in developments in
Victoria as everywhere else, and on his behalf, we wish you well in the
process of adding substance to the commitments made in the justice agreement.

Thank you.

1. Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Corrective services Australia - March Quarter 2002,
Cat. No. 4512.0, Table 5, p21.

2. Australian Institute of Criminology, Persons in juvenile
corrective institutions 1981-2000, AIC Canberra 2001, Table 3 and Figure
2. This over-representation rate reached as high as 17 times the non-Indigenous
rate in 1997: Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian crime -
facts and figures 2000, op.cit, Figure 59.

3. Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian crime
- facts and figures 2000, op.cit, Figure 59.

4. Australian Institute of Criminology, Women in prison
- Numbers soar, Media Release, 1 October 2000. See Also: Margaret Cameron,
Women prisoners and correctional programs, Trends and issues in crime
and criminal justice - Number 194, Australian Institute of Criminology,
Canberra 2001, pp1-2. It must be noted, however, that the female prisoner
population is extremely small and constitutes approximately 6% of the
total prison population.

5. ibid.

6. Australian Institute of Criminology, Women in prison
- Numbers soar, op.cit., p1.

7. Williams, P, Deaths in custody: 10 years on from the
Royal Commission, Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice -Number 203, Australian
Institute of Criminology, Canberra 2001, p2.

8. ibid, p5.

9. Collins, L and Mouzos, J, Australian deaths in custody
and custody-related police operations 2000, Trends and Issues in Criminal
Justice -Number 217, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra 2001,
p2.

10. Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council (NSW), Where
to from here? 10 years after the Royal Commission, some suggested direction
for Aboriginal justice planning, AJAC (NSW), Sydney 2001, p9.

11. ibid.

12. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, Aboriginal deaths in custody : 1991-1997, p257.

13. Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council (NSW), Royal
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Review of NSW government
implementation of recommendations, AJAC NSW, Sydney, 2000, p8.

14. Gardiner, G, Indigenous people and the criminal justice
system in Victoria: Alleged offenders, rates of arrest and over-representation
in the 1990s, op.cit., pp 92-93.

15. ibid, pp78-79.

16. ibid, p50.

17. ibid.

18. For a discussion of the National Commitment see Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice
Report 1999, HREOC Sydney 2000, Chapter 1.

19. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 6 of
the Social Justice Report

Last
updated 5 February 2003