Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

Arrests for public order offences still constitute a significant reason for theinvolvement of Indigenous young people in the juvenile justice system. The WesternAboriginal Legal Service (Broken Hill) drew attention to the disproportionate use ofpublic order offences against Indigenous people in western NSW (submission 755). InVictoria, the most common single category of crime for which Indigenous young peoplewere apprehended was public order offences – nearly 20% of all charges againstIndigenous young people in 1993-94 (Mackay 1996b page 14). There was also a 43%increase in this category for Indigenous young people between 1993-94 and 1994-95(Mackay 1996a page 7). In other jurisdictions the figures are broadly comparable. InNSW around 16% of police cautions and courts appearances for Indigenous young peopleinvolved public order offences (Luke and Cunneen 1995 page 11). Evidence from WAindicates that the proportion of Aboriginal juveniles charged with good order offenceshas increased since 1990. ‘This result gives some support to the proposition that thepolice are using good order offences to clear Aboriginal youth from the streets’ (CrimeResearch Centre 1995 page 5).Section 138B of the Child Welfare Act 1947 (WA) is an example of a welfareprovision used in public order policing. This section allows police to ‘clean the streets’by using legislation originally aimed at children in ‘moral danger’. There have beennumerous complaints about the way this legislation has been used as a form of ‘moralpolicing’ which disproportionately impacts on Aboriginal children and young people(ALSWA submission 127 page 342). It has also been noted that, instead of being taken‘to their place of residence’ as required under the legislation, children have ‘illegally beenput in paddy wagons and taken to the police station for their parents to collect’ (Dodson1995 page 23).Beresford and Omaji have noted that the juvenile justice legislation ‘has done littleto discourage the tendency to lock up children suspected of having a social problem’ inWA (1996 page 115). The same can be said of other jurisdictions. In Queensland thegovernment has encouraged police to use existing ‘care and control’ powers under theChildren’s Services Act. These sections of the legislation provide for intervention and theuse of custody for young people who have not committed a criminal offence but aredeemed to be ‘at risk’ (Cunneen and McDonald 1997 page 173).The Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1994 (NSW) give police power toremove children and young people from public places. The Act empowers police todemand the name, age and address of a young person and remove young people under theage of 16 years from public places if they are unsupervised and the officer believes thatthere is a likelihood of a crime being committed or that the young person is at risk. Theyoung person can be taken home or to a ‘place of refuge’ for up to 24 hours. A youngperson commits an offence if he or she leaves the ‘place of refuge’. This power operatesonly in two areas within the State. It was reviewed in 1996 and its repeal has beenrecommended. The NSW Government is also proposing a Street Safety Bill to give policethe power to break up groups of three or more young people congregated together wherethe officer has a reasonable suspicion that they are likely to intimidate or harass others.Local government by-laws and local ordinances can create more punitive