Page 1338 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I remind the government that the standards it set itself go beyond merely complying with minimum human rights standards. With his speech in this chamber in August 2004, the Chief Minister raised the bar far above minimum human rights standards. It remains to be seen whether the new prison culture will be able to rise above the existing Australian prison industry mentality and priorities and actually deliver a culture based on respect, harm minimisation, rehabilitation and health priorities. This is no easy task, and I have a lot of respect for those corrections officers who keep their humanity and professional integrity in the face of what must be at times an incredibly difficult, thankless and sometimes dangerous environment.
In my 15 minutes I will not be able to cover all the issues that have been raised with my office, but I will focus on the issues of health services, complaints, and children and young people. A major concern with the bill that has been raised by community groups is in regard to clause 52, which provides that the chief executive of corrections is ultimately responsible for the provision of health care to detainees. It would be inappropriate for health professionals to have ultimate responsibility for security, which is, of course, the overarching priority in a prison setting. Health services should be provided by the same organisations that provide health services to the community and it is the responsibility of corrections to ensure the prison population has access to these services.
The voluminous literature concerning corrections health care is almost unanimous in recommending that the provider of health services should be the same as that which provides health services to the community, which in this jurisdiction is ACT Health. The best arrangement may be an independent prisons health service, and I urge the government to investigate setting up an ACT justice health unit similar to the one operating in New South Wales.
While having serious misgivings about the ethical dilemmas that will face any health professional whose legislated responsibility is to provide non-therapeutic services and to answer to the corrections authorities, the Greens believe that clause 52 of the bill is in line with human rights principles and will not be proposing any amendments.
But there are serious issues that arise concerning the confidentiality of health records. It is essential that detainees have confidence that their communications with health professionals and their medical records relating to illegal drug use, mental illness or sexual activity will not be disclosed to corrections staff. This is the essence of harm minimisation. While it is essential that prison staff be aware of medical problems that may result in harm to a detainee or other detainees or to staff, this legislation places a lot of trust in corrections officers not to abuse their power by demanding from health professionals medical information to be used for disciplinary purposes. The use of these powers needs to be closely monitored and reported on. In the absence of an independent prison advisory board, perhaps a parliamentary committee should maintain a close watch on practices at the new jail.
There have been some differences of opinion between the ACT government and members of the ACT Community Coalition on Corrective Services, and they remain unresolved. This is partly the result of irreconcilable differences of opinion, but it is also partly the result of a lack of consultation. The coalition received one briefing, and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .