Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

determination and the maintenance of Indigenous children with their families andcommunities are adhered to. There is no obligation to negotiate with Indigenouscommunities. When asked by the Inquiry how the court was provided with informationwhich makes section 4(g) a meaningful obligation, the Queensland Governmentresponded that ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff or community membersprovide information directly to the courts or indirectly through Departmental staff’ (finalsubmission page 60). However, other evidence suggests that consultation in practice maybe poor (Cunneen and McDonald 1997 pages 174-176).There are also considerable variations in the extent to which police procedures fordealing with young people are set out in law. In some jurisdictions the process by whichpolice should give cautions or the criteria which should be used in deciding whichchildren should be cautioned for particular types of behaviour are not articulated in thelegislation. For instance, many of the important decisions made in relation to thetreatment of juveniles in NSW occur without a legislative base. Police cautioning ofjuveniles is regulated by ‘Commissioner’s Instruction 75 – Child Offenders’. There is nolegislative support for the process and it exists essentially as a use of police discretionendorsed by the Police Commissioner (NSW Government interim submission page 77).Police exercise wide discretion as to how a young person will be dealt by theauthorities. The adverse use of this discretion in regard to Indigenous young people is acritical issue in drawing Indigenous youth further into the juvenile justice system.Another key issue with juvenile justice legislation, with direct implications for selfdetermination,is that Indigenous interests are largely ignored when legislation is beingintroduced or amended. The ALSWA stated in relation to WA,The lack of consultation and total absence of negotiation with the Aboriginal community on thisBill is contrary to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody… No other Aboriginal community organisations were consulted in this process (submission 127pages 344-5).In NSW there was no consultation with Indigenous organisations when the Children(Parental Responsibility) Act 1994 was introduced. In the NT there was strong oppositionby Indigenous organisations such as the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service(NAALAS) and the NT Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council (AJAC) to recent legislationintroducing minimum mandatory imprisonment for certain offences. A recent survey ofthe implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into AboriginalDeaths in Custody noted that inadequate consultation and negotiation with Aboriginalorganisations about legislative changes was a national problem (Cunneen and McDonald1997 pages 125-130, 170).Finally, the lack of adequate funding for Indigenous community-based alternativesto the formal juvenile justice system is a national problem. The lack of alternativesundermines self-determination at the local level and results in greater numbers ofIndigenous young people ending up in institutions, effectively removed from theirfamilies and communities.