Mr LANHUPUY - 1994-09-01
On the ABC on Friday, the Attorney-General announced that he was stepping up consultation on legislation regarding tribal payback. He said that he would flesh out with the judiciary what is required. Does the Attorney-General concede that this recognition of customary law in the Northern Territory is in fact a proposal to create 2 laws for Territorians? Does he concede further that his proposals expose, once again, that the CLP election campaign was based on lies and deceit?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, what a silly question! No wonder the member for Wanguri told the member for Arnhem to jump, and he did. If that is where he takes his starting orders, he will not get very far in this place. The member for Arnhem said that, according to the ABC, I was stepping up consultation. That is untrue. I never used those words. In fact, I acknowledged that, to a greater extent than anywhere else in the country, for 20 years Northern Territory magistrates and judges have already been taking customary law into account to some extent. That is a fact - end of story. It is particularly true in relation to magistrates who hold court hearings in remote areas.
Mr Bell: Isn't that what he is saying?
Mr FINCH: What I said was quite clear, and I have said it to a number of journalists over the period - there is mounting interest in Aboriginal customary law and whether or not to apply it in the courts.
Mr Ede: However, in the election campaign, you said that it was racist.
Mr FINCH: I will give you the answer if you relax. He has not told you to jump yet, so you can stay quiet for a while.
As I acknowledged, it is appropriate for the government to examine this issue given the enormous and growing interest in customary law, including the role, formal or otherwise, that it should play in the judicial system. Contrary to what some journalists reported, I said that we should examine the question rather than consider legislation at this stage. My intention is first to seek the views of the judiciary as to whether they are having difficulty in integrating, if you like, Aboriginal customary law into the laws that we all do and will continue to live under. I do not advocate 2 laws - one for Aboriginal offenders and one for non-Aboriginal offenders - nor does this government. That is not the case at all.
Quite understandably, there is sometimes confusion as to what should be applied. Should traditional payback, delivered prior to the court appearance, be taken into account? A parallel is occasions, such as when a person has been severely embarrassed as a result of publicity, in which the court's sentence has been based, if you like, on that form of punishment by community recognition. Alternatively, and this is a very vexed question, should there be an
Page 141
anticipation of payback? We are not talking only about payback, but also about other approaches to traditional Aboriginal law. It is not a simple matter. It is extremely complex.
Mr Ede: It seemed to be fairly simple in the election advertisements.
Mr FINCH: And it was, because the ALP was advocating 2 laws in terms of treating Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders differently.
Members interjecting.
Mr Ede: A bunch of lies.
Mr FINCH: Mr Speaker, I take offence at the suggestion that they were lies because they were based on the words uttered by the Labor Party.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri.
Mr FINCH: I have explained the government's intention.
Mr Stirling: Do you intend also to talk to Aboriginal organisations?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy will hold his tongue. The Attorney-General has the floor.
Mr FINCH: In relation to consultation, whether with specific groups or the broader community, probably that will be needed in the course of this process. However, that does not constitute an increase in the pace of this assessment. As it is, the courts are coping by exercising their judgment, as to the component of traditional law that should or should not be taken into account, on a case-by-case basis. I do not have any major discomfort with that although obviously the judiciary would find, as would anyone, that these are extremely complex matters. I will not discuss that complexity, but I am sure that members will acknowledge it. We are dealing with this issue very steadily. If members opposite are not happy for us to do that, they should say so. If they would rather us ...
Mr Ede: We simply want you to acknowledge your hypocrisy.
Mr FINCH: There is no acknowledgment of the member for Arnhem's suggestion in relation to the CLP's campaign because we recognise very clearly what is to be interpreted as 2 separate laws.
Page 142
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, what a silly question! No wonder the member for Wanguri told the member for Arnhem to jump, and he did. If that is where he takes his starting orders, he will not get very far in this place. The member for Arnhem said that, according to the ABC, I was stepping up consultation. That is untrue. I never used those words. In fact, I acknowledged that, to a greater extent than anywhere else in the country, for 20 years Northern Territory magistrates and judges have already been taking customary law into account to some extent. That is a fact - end of story. It is particularly true in relation to magistrates who hold court hearings in remote areas.
Mr Bell: Isn't that what he is saying?
Mr FINCH: What I said was quite clear, and I have said it to a number of journalists over the period - there is mounting interest in Aboriginal customary law and whether or not to apply it in the courts.
Mr Ede: However, in the election campaign, you said that it was racist.
Mr FINCH: I will give you the answer if you relax. He has not told you to jump yet, so you can stay quiet for a while.
As I acknowledged, it is appropriate for the government to examine this issue given the enormous and growing interest in customary law, including the role, formal or otherwise, that it should play in the judicial system. Contrary to what some journalists reported, I said that we should examine the question rather than consider legislation at this stage. My intention is first to seek the views of the judiciary as to whether they are having difficulty in integrating, if you like, Aboriginal customary law into the laws that we all do and will continue to live under. I do not advocate 2 laws - one for Aboriginal offenders and one for non-Aboriginal offenders - nor does this government. That is not the case at all.
Quite understandably, there is sometimes confusion as to what should be applied. Should traditional payback, delivered prior to the court appearance, be taken into account? A parallel is occasions, such as when a person has been severely embarrassed as a result of publicity, in which the court's sentence has been based, if you like, on that form of punishment by community recognition. Alternatively, and this is a very vexed question, should there be an
Page 141
anticipation of payback? We are not talking only about payback, but also about other approaches to traditional Aboriginal law. It is not a simple matter. It is extremely complex.
Mr Ede: It seemed to be fairly simple in the election advertisements.
Mr FINCH: And it was, because the ALP was advocating 2 laws in terms of treating Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders differently.
Members interjecting.
Mr Ede: A bunch of lies.
Mr FINCH: Mr Speaker, I take offence at the suggestion that they were lies because they were based on the words uttered by the Labor Party.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri.
Mr FINCH: I have explained the government's intention.
Mr Stirling: Do you intend also to talk to Aboriginal organisations?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy will hold his tongue. The Attorney-General has the floor.
Mr FINCH: In relation to consultation, whether with specific groups or the broader community, probably that will be needed in the course of this process. However, that does not constitute an increase in the pace of this assessment. As it is, the courts are coping by exercising their judgment, as to the component of traditional law that should or should not be taken into account, on a case-by-case basis. I do not have any major discomfort with that although obviously the judiciary would find, as would anyone, that these are extremely complex matters. I will not discuss that complexity, but I am sure that members will acknowledge it. We are dealing with this issue very steadily. If members opposite are not happy for us to do that, they should say so. If they would rather us ...
Mr Ede: We simply want you to acknowledge your hypocrisy.
Mr FINCH: There is no acknowledgment of the member for Arnhem's suggestion in relation to the CLP's campaign because we recognise very clearly what is to be interpreted as 2 separate laws.
Page 142
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016