Victoria is one of the more enlightened states in looking after Indigenous people...but still the statistics are appalling, as this analysis by Keith McEwan points out. "Life is not so good for an Indigenous person living in Victoria...or, for that matter, anywhere in Australia."

Report: Indigenous in Victoria

By Keith McEwan*

As a person keenly interested in Indigenous affairs for more than 60 years, I find that the 2008-09 Indigenous Affairs Report of the Victorian Government, presented in an “easy to read” format along with beautiful art work, contains most useful information.

After reading so many negative, alienating stories about Indigenous life over the decades, it is heartening that this report, when offering a profile of the 33,000 Indigenous people living in Victoria, affirms that “Indigenous culture and heritage is a fundamental part of Victoria’s identity” and calls on all Victorians to “recognise, respect and celebrate” Indigenous contributions.     

In times when populism can adversely influence governments, and obfuscation becomes a defence mechanism, it is refreshing to read a report that is frank, honest and free of false, unrealistic promises.

The IA Report details what is widely known: life is not so good for an Indigenous person living in Victoria…or, for that matter, anywhere in Australia.

Mothers of babies: of the mothers admitted to hospital a month before delivery of a baby, 40% of Indigenous women were smokers compared with 8% of all women  (statistics from 2007-08 year). The report unfortunately does not analyse alcohol, the most common drug damaging babies: the foetal alcohol syndrome does not feature.

Babies dying before delivery: Indigenous perinatal mortality rate increased to 20.4 per 1000 births compared to the non-Indigenous rate of 9.8 per 1000 births (2007).

Police interaction: Indigenous young people aged 10-17 were 3.1 times more likely to be processed by Victoria Police than non-Indigenous young people (2008-9).

Who police caution: Police caution (instead of charging) 54.7% of non-Indigenous young people they come across in their duties, but only 34.3% of Indigenous young people (2008-9).

Repeat offenders: the proportion of Indigenous prisoners who returned to prison within two years after being discharged was 49.1% compared with 33.1% for non-Indigenous prisoners. Released Indigenous prisoners are almost 16 times more likely than non-Indigenous released prisoners to return to prison under sentence within two years (2008-9).

Appendix A, in highlighting  the disadvantages experienced by Victorian Aboriginals contains no surprises – for example it says:

Life Expectancy: Indigenous Victorian males live 12 years less on average than non-Indigenous males, to age 67 compared with age 79.  For females, it is 10 years less, to 73 by comparison with 83 (2009).

Jobless:The unemployment rate was 15.7% for Indigenous Victorians, 5.3% for non-Indigenous Victorians (2006). (There are many Indigenous people receiving disability support pensions, and thus also unemployed. Many suffer from ongoing trauma and disadvantages they and their families have experienced over many decades).

Owning your home: 37.3% of Indigenous Victorians own their homes compared with 74.6% of non-Indigenous Victorians (2006).

Protecting children: with Victorian children 0-16 years, almost 5 children in every 1000 are in need of protection from abuse or neglect. By comparison, just on 11 times as many – almost 55 per 1000 Indigenous children – need protection (2008-9).

The Strategic Action Area Target mentioned in the IA Report, for this most disturbing situation, is limited to reducing the number to 51 per 1000 Indigenous children in 2013. It is obvious that there are sensitive, family and community issues involved in overcoming this problem, especially those relating to the long-term harm that could result in removing children from their families in the worst cases. Nevertheless, if “Little children are sacred” – as the NT report said –  more resources and qualified staff must be deployed to tackle such a stark violation of a vital human right belonging to those most in need of the community’s protection, children.

Imprisonment: Again the figures are alarming: For every 1000 Indigenous Victorian adults, 10 are in prison. For every 1000 non-Indigenous Victorian adults, 1 is in prison (2008).

Space considerations must limit such a report from covering such a wide range of issues, but it is surprising that there is little is mention of the justice system and the sentencing alternatives to imprisonment, which should be firmly acknowledged as a sanction of last resort.  The progress being made with the Indigenous Restorative Justice Scheme, Community-Based Orders and Suspended Sentences, for example, would enable readers of the IA Report to learn how effective these much less-costly to the taxpayer alternatives to prison have been in protecting the community and rehabilitating offenders.

Many leaders of Australia’s First Peoples have sought self-determination over the decades as they struggled to break free of the missions and reserves, and fought through the courts to claim land rights.  In this regard, the IA Report tells of the distinct Indigenous communities in Victoria, with 38 Indigenous networks now in place and with 8 Regional Indigenous Councils established. It is also a notable achievement that 200 Indigenous, community-run organisations are operating, covering health, culture, sport, justice and legal advocacy.

Of the utmost importance, in view of the long-term harm done to Indigenous Australians over generations due to the forcible removal of their children by government authorities until relatively recent times, the 2009-10 State Budget allocation of $6.2 million to Stolen Generations Victoria is to be applauded. This means that the vital work of attending to the special needs of many Indigenous families, who suffer trauma and disadvantages as a result of such inhuman actions, can continue.

As Deputy Premier, Rob Hulls, states in the preface to the IA Report:
“We are still working towards our goal of  closing the considerable gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian...we are making progress…it is up to all Victorians, however, to help provide the opportunity for current and future Indigenous generations.”

This report offers a guide to what has to be done by all of us.

– Keith McEwan, member of Civil Liberties Australia, 7 March 2010

Keith McEwan has been a close observer of Indigenous matters in Victoria and nationally for more than 50 years, as a concerned individual and as an adoptive parent, with wife June, of an Indigenous child.

With an appeal pending in the High Court from the SA Government because of the over-turning of part of its 'bikie' legislation, similar laws are largely on hold Australia-wide. In WA, motorcycle groups are getting active ahead of a likely mid-year introduction of anti-association laws to the WA Parliament.
(Photo: Club rally, Fremantle, Feb 2010: photo by JR)

Bikies rally to fight legislation

West Australian motorcycle clubs called members and supporters together last month to fight proposed legislation under which the WA Government would turn selected individuals into criminal pariahs, without charge or conviction.

On Saturday 13 February 2010, a protest ride in Fremantle, organized by the United Motorcycle Council of Western Australia which represents a dozen clubs, demonstrated opposition to the laws, set to be introduced to the WA Parliament mid-year.

The anti-association laws are expected to dictate who a person or group could talk to, where they could converse, and how frequently. They are not likely to specifically name bikies, and so could be applied to any group.

The rally involved a range of clubs, motorcyclists’ families and several generations of bikers from all walks of life blending harmoniously in a bid to highlight what they described as the absurdity of “radical and reactionary proposals”.

UMCWA spokesperson, Peter Godfree, said the laws unfairly targeted bikers and would alienate motorcyclists and club members from the rest of the community. Already, negative stereotyping of so-called “outlaw” bikies was stigmatizing council members’ children at school and impacting adversely on members’ businesses.

“UMCs in every state believe it is an issue that is not just for their state, but an issue all Australians need to be aware of, so we decided to band together to fight the laws,” Mr Godfree said. “We have a lot of public support in this state and obviously in other states as well.

“It’s not just unconstitutional…it’s downright un-Australian.”

Mr Godfree said that the Attorney General, Christian Porter, and other members of the WA Government had chosen not to consult with or inform the Council about the planned laws in advance.

He said he hoped the protests would “open the eyes of average Australians” so they would know “the laws are not right, not fair and don’t just attack us, they affect everybody”.

The group are prepared to take their battle as far as the High Court if necessary, he said, questioning the credibility of government assertions the laws will take aim at only the “half a percent of the population” that comprise “outlaw clubs”.

“Even if they got rid of bikies, these laws would stay in place and be used to attack other minorities,” Mr Godfree said.

“They’re using us as a platform for laws, like seizure of assets laws and stop-and -search laws, which they said they would use on the bikies and the Mr Bigs of the drug trade, but you’ll find that they’re using them on the general public.”

Last year Mr Porter said he would defer drafting the bill to observe hiccups in the anti-bikie legislation of NSW and South Australia.

SA’s Supreme Court has overturned the SA legislation, quashing one charge on a point of judicial principle. The basis for the decision was that the A-G was making decisions to ban clubs and people on secret “information”, not evidence, provided by the SA Police Commissioner. While such an administrative decision was, under the legislation, a legal process, it was not legal if the information/decision remained secret so that it could not be reviewed by a court.

The SA Government is appealing the Supreme Court ruling to the High Court of Australia. All States and Territories are awaiting the High Court ruling.

Anti-association laws can brand individuals as criminals without a conventional conviction. Anyone subject to an anti-association order is restricted as to whom they can speak with, how frequently, and where. It works in reverse also: ordinary people are stopped from conversing with branded individuals.

As Mr Godfree pointed out, banning one person can often impact on children and workmates.

“We have a perfectly good judicial system and it should be left to the courts to decide who is a criminal and who isn’t,” Mr Godfree said.

A report from the Australian Institute of Criminology to the August 2009 federal parliamentary inquiry showed ‘anti-bikie’ fortification laws introduced to the WA Parliament in 2001 to combat the “sinister and complex activities of criminal gangs”, had rarely been used.

In 2008, after legal challenges, the High Court upheld the WA Police Commissioner’s right to seek warrants under organized crime anti-fortification provisions contained in the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, but the report also indicated that since 2004, no warrants had been sought.

A spokesperson for the CCC last month said the latest figures, from the 2008-09 Annual Report, confirmed no anti-fortification warrants had been issued.

In relation to the WA legislation, Mr Porter said late in February that: "The recent protests by the UMCWA have not fazed the Government. Introducing the organised crime legislation is a priority for the State Government. The legislation will target groups who meet together for the purposes of planning, organising or engaging in criminal activity. If these groups are not involved in organised crime they have nothing to worry about."

By Liz Murray, who is an Australian freelance researcher and journalist writing on civil liberties, human rights and crime matters (Photo by JR).

POSTSCRIPT: It is expected that the ‘bikie’ laws will form the basis of a complaint to the UN Human Rights Council when it reviews Australia’s compliance in 2011.

Who would have thought a Labor Government would introduce Big-Brother-like ID numbers for school students! With the rationale that parents could "be able to track the records of a child's schooling" even if they move schools.

I have been/am a teacher. Parents have numerous ways to track their child's progress - chief among them talking to their children, meeting with teachers, checking homework, reviewing periodic progress reports, attending extra-curricular events, knowing their children's friends and their families. The only thing "an individual identity number" enables is computerised reporting, tracking, and linking of data - students, schools, teachers ... past, present, and future.

Labor needs to clarify precisely what problem "an individual identity number" is addressing that is not addressed fully by other means. And Labor's policy on privacy, use, and security of such numbers. Frankly, if a parents, teachers, or schools need numbers to track student performance, then there is something seriously wrong with our education enterprise that mere identity numbers won't fix.

Judy Bamberger,
CLA member, O'Connor ACT

Editor, CLA Your Opinion: The Tax Commissioner's defence of his powers to break into homes and businesses without judicial warrants as 'trust me, I'm a good guy' is a dangerous argument. Powers such as these should be resisted when proposed, and removed where they exist. Many societies have lived to regret their complacency in allowing them. In the 1970s the Statistician asked for these powers to gather statistics. After a vigorous campaign, they were deleted.

If, as the Commissioner says, the powers are rarely used, then the same judicial controls society imposes on police investigating serious crimes are appropriate. We are becoming far too complacent about the erosion of our civil liberties, and too trusting that our governments always act with discretion.

Bill Orme
Executive Member, NSW Privacy Committee 1975-82
Neutral Bay, NSW

One CLA member has run into what he calls 'hypocritical bullies' administering land tax. He has had to produce a 'sleep diary' for three years - yes, three years - to prove he lives where he lives. What's next - a thought diary to prove you haven't thought any bad thoughts against government bureaucrats,

Article continues »...

Story begins:

The Treasurer of South Australia, Mr Kevin Foley, recently promised during a radio interview to cut land tax if his government is returned in the March state election. Transcript and reader comments (including by CLA member, Trevor Cocks):
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/foley-fires-land-tax-shot/story-fn2sdwup-1225824317933

Trevor Cocks writes:

My concern is not so much the land tax itself, but the way Mr Foley's revenue department administers the tax act and how they seem to arbitrarily assess exemption status.

Their decisions seem to be based on ambiguous criteria that is supposed to define principle place of residence (PPR). It is a definition which varies from state to state
for each land tax act. For example, in the ACT it is defined according to whether the property is rented or not, and in NSW only properties valued over $300,000 attract land tax.

In SA the assessment of land tax exemption is far more complicated and it has become clear to me that not every home owner is treated equally.

Although land tax was supposed to be abolished when the GST (goods and services tax) started, state governments continue to charge some property owners with land tax. The administrative process for collecting this tax varies between the states, but in SA it appears to be based on very arbitrary guidelines that can make their decisions quite discriminatory and unfair. I can illustrate this with my own experience:

Mr Foley and his department, Revenue SA, asked me to produce a diary of overnight stays for the past three (3) years in order to get land tax exemption for my PPR in Adelaide, the only property I have in SA. It seems I lost its land tax exempt status because of a Revenue SA error: they posted me a bill that was returned unclaimed because they had sent it to the wrong address.

I was temporarily in Canberra at the time when a staffer in RevenueSA incorrectly addressed the bill. When I complained about this and applied to have my exempt status reinstated, I was asked to prove that I slept at my Adelaide property more nights than not over the past three years. I refused on the grounds that such personal and security information about a citizen should not be collected by governments for fear of potential misuse.

I asked SA Legislative Councillor John Darley to represent me in discussions with Mr
Foley about my situation, but the outcome was much the same, except for a list of even more sensitive requirements to prove PPR. Apparently, there was an attempt to discredit me by suggesting RevenueSA had taped telephone conversations of me that prove I only occasionally live at the Adelaide address and that they had visited the property and found no one at home. When asked to produce what would have been illegal tapes, they backed off and admitted that no one had actually visited the property.  In other words, someone working for Mr Foley appears ready to use a fib and bully tactics until challenged. This surely is a dangerous misuse of bureaucratic power.

As a form of additional punishment for complaining about their treatment, I had to provide daily sleep diaries for my whereabouts over the past three (3) years in both SA and interstate!

I also had to produce copies of income tax returns, insurance papers and answers to a set of other intrusive questions, all of which seem somewhat unrelated to their
published criteria for PPR. When I provided some of this information (eg. comparative contents insurance for my PPR and a small country house that I was renovating and using as an office for a small part-time interstate business), this was still not enough. They wanted those sleep diaries!

Mr Foley made it clear that it is entirely my choice as to whether I provide more information to his department…but, if I don’t, I have to pay land tax on my principal place of residence, even though it was RevenueSA’s error that abolished my existing exemption.

While members of Mr Foley's state government seem quite sensitive about any questioning of their own sleeping arrangements (such as in the case of the Premier, Mr Rann), they obviously have no respect for the privacy of the sleeping arrangements of their citizens.

I am looking forward to voting against hypocritical bullies at the state election.

Trevor Cocks,
Adelaide, SA

People who think refugees do it easy on Christmas Island don't understand the reality of their situation, Marie Gordon writes. She refutes claims of Shadow Immigration Minister Scott Morrison after his recent whistle-stop visit to CI.

Article continues »...

Christmas Island is no cushy gig

'Rocking the asylum boats' (Scott Morrison, Sun-Herald Sydney, 7/2 ), clearly knows nothing about Christmas Island, or refugees (he calls them 'illegals' twice; they are not and never have been that). Robinson's article is so full of conjectures I can only wonder why he has set himself up for scrutiny.

1. Boat people are not 'illegals'. Australia is a signatory to the International Refugee Act and, as such, we are obliged to accept refugees into our country.
2. Along with 20 others that I know of, I write to refugees in detention on CI. Some of them have been waiting up to 9-11 months to be processed, so where does Robinson get this idea of instant visas and a swift move to the mainland? If only. I know this from my two reliable contacts who live and work on the island.
3. How far did he 'investigate' conditions when he visited. Did he see the 68 children who are detained within a fenced facility, which consists mostly of metal, concrete and gravel, tiny demountable building, with small bedrooms. The children are under guard and not free to leave this prison. What happened to the Government's promise that no children shall be in detention?
4. The Human Rights Commission wants CI axed and with good reason. PM Rudd (who, initially, wanted it closed) now can't get enough tents shipped to the island to hold more and more refugees. He knows he can get away with blue murder as CI is in the Excision Zone (the reason why Howard had it built there), which means we can weasel out of our commitment to the International Refugee Act.
5. As for 'case management', there are at present five people trying, in vain, to manage the unmanageable.
6. As for the 'wads of money' the asylum seekers are supposed to have, the truth is that they don't have enough money to buy a biro from the canteen. One refugee had to leave his country, his wife and three children to come to Australia hoping he could make a better future for them. Ten months later he is still waiting.
7. Lastly, processing refugees on CI is far more expensive than processing on the mainland. It costs at least twice as much to keep refugees on CI as it would on the mainland.

Marie Gordon, member of Civil Liberties Australia and Amnesty International Palmerston ACT

Morrison article: http://www.scottmorrison.com.au/info/multimedia.aspx?id=70

Throughout Australia, people are making personal decisions about full-body airport scanners. If you are against them (or for them), you can have your say by writing to the man responsible for the decision. Here Kathy Lund's point of view.

Article continues »...

To Mr Albanese (Transport Minister)

I am sure I am one of many who are outraged at the decision to introduce body scanners to our Australian airports. I can't express enough how disgusted I am at hearing this news. Having voted your party in at the last election I am full of regrets now & you certainly have lost my vote on this one.

Your decision is based on nothing but lies & deceit. It has been stated many times that the underwear bomber would not have been detected with a body scanner. That there are better ways to detect terrorists using smart technology, dogs, personal profiling & training of our security personnel. Must we suffer this humiliating & dehumanizing indecent assault on our privacy & right to good health? The terrorists will be laughing at us & developing new ways to out smart your systems.

What's next? Internal searches for all passengers as these scanners don't detect internal devices, and that's where they have (even as we speak) started hiding bombs? Perhaps as has been suggested in the UK we could put these devices on cameras in streets or use them at sporting venues to detect criminals?

Don't say its not possible once they have been implemented in airports. Why don't we all wear hospital gowns on the plane, pass through a room where we remove the gown & let the security personnel look at us & take pictures!! How would you go getting that implemented in airports, there would be an out-cry & yet this is what you are proposing to do under the guise of, "what they don't know wont hurt them".

It is an affront to our privacy & our health!! Is your government being led by the nose by corporate giants ? I think so in an attempt to up-sell on their part. They make mega dollars & we lose our right to privacy on some trumped up attempt to bomb a plane.

And don't forget we are a multicultural nation, have you considered the implications on religious grounds? What about the children? Can they be viewed as well by these scanners? What ever happened to protecting our children from child pornography, not enhancing the sick world of pornographers. Would you want your children or wife or mother going through this all in the name of security?

Security personnel have already attempted to use this technology for their own purpose when recently a US Congressman was directed to the scanner - even though it was optional - knowing full well who he was. (He was in favor of not running out the body scanners). Security staff admitted they knew full well who he was when he identified himself...proving that this type of system can easily be used & manipulated for personal gain whatever agenda the operator has.

I'm wondering who will be the terrorist, the person with the bomb or the people looking at us naked & doing who knows what with our images & giving us a nice dose of radiation at the same time? Even small doses of radiation build up over time & damage our DNA. And who knows what are the implications for the health of our younger generations, who will no doubt end up with higher doses over years of exposure.

This is not the way to go lose our freedom & rights, it makes you the government no better than the terrorists, you know. It's not right. Let's be smart in this country - don't follow like lambs to the slaughter!!

Oh, & by the way, I wont get used to the idea as time goes on: I'm sure that's a theory your government is planning on. If you were truthful to the public & told them all the details, I'm sure they would not get used to it either.

I love to travel but, when this type of propaganda is rolled out, I say boycott these airports & tell our government they have gone too far.

Mr Albanese, your government goes too far!!!

Regards
Kathryn Lund
Minlaton, SA

Editor, Canberra Times: I agree with Prof Pat McGorry that immigration detention centres are "factories for producing mental illness". But I'd go further. I'd say federal laws designed to punish refugees (for who they are) are similar to the penal laws that England used to punish the Irish for who they were.

Edmund Burke's description of England's penal laws (in occupied Ireland) also applies to Australia's punitive detention laws: "They are well-fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man."

Valuing a detention policy (that can't feel pain) higher than children who can is insane. There has to be a better way to win an election than serial child abuse.

Graham Macafee, CLA member, Latham ACT

Despite parades and entertainment on Australia Day, dark clouds will hover over the heads of our country`s First People.

Replacing Empire Day as a day of national pride in 1911, 10 years after Federation, Australia Day never achieved its objective of unifying " One people - one destiny - one flag" because the main emphasis remained on re-enacting the arrival of the British fleet into Sydney Harbour on January 26, 1788, which Aboriginal people view as Invasion Day.

It was always a victor`s presentation of history, with the exploits of heroic Aboriginal resistance leaders, like Pemulway and Yagan, suppressed and Indigenous people sidelined as a "dying race".

In 1938, as sesquicentenary celebrations for the "first landing" were held, Aboriginal leaders declared January 26 a Day of Mourning and Protest and held a public meeting in Sydney, appealing for equality and full citizenship.

More than three decades later, the Aboriginal tent Embassy sprang into life opposite Parliament House in Canberra on the evening of Australia Day 1972, flying its own flag as Aborigines protested at being treated as outcasts in their own country.

When "Advance Australia Fair" replaced "God Save the Queen" as the national anthem in 1984, the Aboriginal community reminded Australia that White Australia has a black history. Then, before the bicentenary celebrations in 1988, the new National Australia Day Committee, struggling, to foster one identity to unite all people of this continent with the theme, "One Land, One People", falsely called Australia Day "a day of contact - not conquest".

From 1992 onwards, Aborigines have countered Australia Day celebrations by holding Survival Day Concerts every year, at first at La Perouse directly opposite the spot in Botany Bay where Cook and Banks first landed in 1770, and later at Sydney's Waverley Park, near where Captain Phillip's First Fleet built permanent buildings on Cadigal Country 18 years later. The concerts are spreading throughout the nation.

In the third century since white men in wigs invaded Australia, the divisiveness of the date remains, and the Australian flag still features an imperial symbol, the Union Jack, to which black Australians are meant to pay homage.

With those patriotic boosters, the Australia Day Council, trying to artificially inject universal national pride once a year, unfinished business remains for Indigenous people, which they - understandably - want addressed.

Only after our nation accepts the truth of its part-black history, corrects the inequities still daily visited on Aborigines, and eliminates the lingering symbols and symbolism of invasion, can white and black Australians en masse join hands on Australia Day.

Keith McEwan. 19 Jan 10

PHOTO: Taken by a photographer from Man: the magazine for men, this image shows a section of the Day of Mourning meeting which took place in the Australian Hall at 150 Elizabeth Street on 26 January 1938. John Patten is standing on the right. (Man, March 1938. Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.)

Editor, The West Australian, Sir: I welcome your report "State to pay big compo bill after confiscation case dropped" TWA, p1, by Sean Cowan.

Even though the Australian Crime Commission had not charged Nigel Cunningham Swift Mansfield with any offence, the State DPP decided to freeze all the assets of Mr Mansfield, and cause him and his family physical, psychological and financial hardship to such extent that the case went to the High Court of Australia. There the court considered the legality that the WA DPP would not release funds so that Mr Mansfield could properly defend his case, amongst other matters.

The lesson for all States of Australia to learn from this case is the DPPs should not be eager to jump the gun before a formal charge is laid. If they can learn this, innocent people like Mr. Mansfield and his family would not have to suffer years of severe mental torture, as he did when this case dragged on for so long before the State DPP conceded that Mr. Mansfield had no case to answer.

I trust the compensation payout will take into account the almost eight years Mr Mansfield - and his family, and his daughter's education - has suffered.

I congratulate his legal team for their success; but I condemn the State for taking so long to bring the case to a close.

Brian G Tennant, Human Rights Campaigner
Civil Liberties Australia, Subiaco, Perth

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/6672804/state-to-pay-6m-compo-after-case-collapses/

Should prisons be islands of purity, or should society recognise that prisoners engage in sex? If we acknowledge the fact, then condoms should be issued for everyone's safety, as Mark contends here. A similar argument applies to providing syringes in jails for drug use.

Condoms needed to cut STDs

A friend of mine ended up in prison and informed me that they have a no condom policy within prisons. I understand that the enforcement authority does not want to encourage sex. But the unfortunate thing is, if it's going to happen, it will.

The idea behind prison is that the person incarcerated will be released. This means that prisons are a breeding ground for Sexually Transmitted Diseases that will be released on the public.

I do not question a prisoner being punished, but I do think that the public should not end up being punished for another's crimes. If we want to aim at eradicating STDs, why don't we at least attempt to put a stop to it by providing prisoners with condoms?

Mark, Melbourne

CLA's CEO Bill Rowlings was quoted in Brisbane's Sunday Mail in January 2010 decrying the fact that Qld Police are taking DNA swabs from 10 to 16-year-olds and filing them away on a criminal database. A reader has taken him to task; read her comment and here's his response.

Article continues »...

Message: Bill Rowlings' comment on DNA tagging for kids suggests to me that he's not suitable for a position of authority in Australia. He said that police could be taking DNA from kids for stealing a Mars Bar. Its insulting to think that our police are that petty and stupid, or that the magistrates that ok'd the DNA sampling are in a vicious want of common sense. Given what I read 12 year olds are doing these days, I'm glad that if these kids cannot be rehabilitated, then at least they have a significantly greater chance of being caught as adults for the crimes they might commit. And I doubt they will be stealing Mars Bars as adults.

Please think twice before you elect him to the board. From that one silly outlandish comment I don't think he'd be much of an asset if that's the kind of Civil Liberties he is going to advocate. Sincerely, Sarah.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your comment. We like feedback, even when it is critical of CLA.

Perhaps you are unaware of Freddo Frog case in WA in November 2009?

A 12-year-old boy is still under charge as of Jan 2010 for 'receiving' a stolen Freddo Frog, worth about 70 cents. The WA case was the basis for the CLA comments on the situation in Qld, where police are taking the DNA of juveniles as young as 10 under magistrates' orders.

From our national perspective, police in Qld are about the same as police in WA...unless you can point to some major difference between the police forces in different states? As the Freddo Frog case proves, police will sometimes take excessive action against juveniles. Taking DNA samples from 10-year-old children for petty, childish offences is excessive, in CLA's opinion.

The potential danger in both states, and the rest of Australia, is that mandatory sentencing for juveniles will be introduced, eventually taking away any discretion magistrates now have to put a halt to taking DNA from children. (As the Sunday Mail article points out, even with discretion some magistrates are obviously approving the taking of DNA samples from 10-year-old children in Queensland).

Bill Rowlings