Page 2299 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are no longer talking about an order that is designed and targeted at instances of individual violence against a particular person, an order that is intended to protect that person. We are talking about a very different and broader type of law, whose limits are not even defined. We are also talking about restricting people’s freedom to move and associate, even though they will not ordinarily be committing any crime.
A stated intent of the government’s new NAPRO scheme is that it will remove bad influences and allow an offender to rehabilitate. Another consideration, though, is that by criminalising association, NAPROs offer another way for an offender to commit an offence and thereby return to the criminal justice system, which will perpetuate those negative influences.
Have a look at how non-association orders have been used in New Zealand, for example. New Zealand media reported that homeless people in Christchurch have been banned from associating with each other under New Zealand’s equivalent NAPRO scheme. They can no longer eat together at charity-provided meals. They were given the orders because they were sleeping in abandoned buildings. Homelessness charities were appalled at the decision. The comment from one was that these people “have no-one else; this is their family”.
This leads me to another concern with the proposed NAPRO regime, in that it does not preclude orders that prevent association between an offender and a member of their close family, or which prevent an offender attending their residence, family member’s residence, or place of work, education or worship. When NAPROs restrict such personal associations, there is a higher chance the person will breach the order regardless and thereby commit an offence. This may be particularly so with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who often have particularly close kinship ties. This is the situation with the homeless people in New Zealand that I mentioned. They are told they cannot associate with their homeless friends or go to the buildings where they sleep. What do you think they are going to do in those circumstances when those people are essentially their family and the buildings are essentially their homes?
Particularly if NAPRO offences are expanded further via regulation, I hold concerns about the broad ranging impact the orders could have, including on vulnerable groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This has been a real concern in New South Wales where NAPROs are permitted for a wide range of offences. The stated intention is to prevent gang-related activity. Groups who work with the community such as the Shopfront Youth Legal Centre have raised concerns with how the laws impact on vulnerable groups. At a time when we have over-representation of Indigenous people in our criminal justice system, to be putting in place the sort of offences that are likely to lead to them getting more and more administration of justice offences which see them land back in jail again is counter to what we should be seeking to do to break this cycle of over-representation in our justice system.
This leads me to the next problematic area, the amended exclusion order powers. The power allows an officer to direct a person to leave a certain exclusion zone for up to six hours and failure to do so constitutes an offence. The officer can order a person to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video