Um, that's deeply illogical. Such misallocation of resources is guided (or justfied) by the (mis)identification of the salient part of Aborignal deaths in custody being 'Aboriginal inmates deaths in prison'.
Let me demostrate the allocation of resources thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Aboriginal_Deaths_in_Custody#Final_report
The Commission concluded that the 99 deaths investigated were not due to police violence
...
The Royal Commission reported that Aboriginal people in custody died at about the same rate as non-Aboriginal people in custody
...
A related issue, not investigated by the Commission, is the disproportionately high number of Indigenous Australians who come under some form of custody or who are imprisoned under the law
...
One of the outcomes of the Commission was the establishment of a National Deaths in Custody Monitoring and Research Program
Many years after RCIADIC, problems persisted, and various criticisms have been made about the Commission. Some blame the lack of commitment by the various governments to properly implement its recommendations; others blame the Commission, saying it was too constrained by its mandate and so could not possibly have achieved the necessary reforms to tackle the marginalisation of Indigenous people.
There's your smoking gun of the misallocation of resources. Why spend millions doing research into the racial differences of something you already have stats on that show no racial differences, rather than focus on other areas that do? The deaths-in-custody monitoring stuff they recommended does jack shit, since they didn't in fact find any statistical evidence of a difference in that specific thing, so it's effectively a waste of effort that could have gone towards more effective means. So ... we didn't find an actual difference but the main focus will be spending millions more every year just to check ... ?
That emphasis relegates the entire "monitoring" system they put in place to a type of palliative care for those already screwed by the system.
Except it was (partly) covered by the Royal Commission. While the intial terms of reference were quite narrow the amendments made on 5 May 1988 did, specifically:
"(ii) authorise him, for the purpose of reporting on any
underlying issues associated with the deaths to take account
of social, cultural and legal factors which, in his judgment
appeared to have a bearing on the deaths,"
And indeed it's findings did pursue these issues
"Its final report, tabled on April 15, 1991, found Indigenous people were more likely to die in custody because they were more likely to be in custody. Their over-representation in police and prison custody was described as 'grossly disproportionate'."
"It found Indigenous disadvantage arose from:
- prejudicial policing, especially for minor crimes relating to public order;
- the police tendency to caution, charge and arrest Indigenous people, rather than issue warnings or court attendance notices;
- police and courts not granting bail to Indigenous people; and
- courts sentencing Indigenous people to prison rather than handing down non-prison sentences.
Accordingly, a series of the commission’s recommendations sought to decriminalise minor offences, uphold the right to bail and ensure arrest and imprisonment were sanctions of last resort."
https://theconversation.com/deaths-in-custody-25-years-after-the-royal-commission-weve-gone-backwards-57109 (for the last two quotes, the first is directly from the amended terms of reference of the Royal Commission)
Your 'smoking gun' is only enabled by a very selective implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations. It is facilitated and perpetuated by the misrepresenation of 'Aborginal deaths in custody' being only an issue of 'the deaths of Aboriginal inmates in prison'. The latter was not the view of the Royal Commission.
Author
Topic: The Abusive Policing Thread: Beyond Brown, No Justice (Read 442341 times)