Page 1340 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The AMA has stated that prisons have become the mental health institutions of the 21st century. I hope the relevant ministers and their cabinet colleagues appreciate that a coercive authoritarian culture in prison is actually antithetical to mental health therapy and rehabilitation. Drugs, mental illness, low levels of literacy and a history of sexual and physical abuse are standard features in the personal histories of the majority of detainees, particularly female detainees. Every effort must be made to address and treat the causes of self-harming behaviours. Merely denying them, removing them and making them the subject of disciplinary punishments is counterproductive.
While it is difficult, if not impossible, to prescribe best practice in legislation, I am hopeful that the prisons health policy, regulations to this bill, ministerial directions, recruitment policies and staff training are all aimed squarely at realising corrections best practice in the ACT. This task is too important to leave to corrections alone. While they are obviously the central agency in the prison project, the vision that the Chief Minister presented in August 2004 will depend on other agencies being given the authority to move their agendas up the list of priorities and considerations.
The bill lacks a satisfactory mechanism for resolving disputes between the prison executive and other agencies. A number of times in the bill a line appears that says a certain entitlement can be withdrawn if it “circumvents any process for investigating complaints”. Restrictions on entitlements include: denial of access to religious, spiritual and cultural needs, visits by family members, making or receiving telephone calls, sending or receiving mail or access to accredited people.
On first reading it is difficult to understand why a detainee should be denied access to essential minimum entitlements, most especially access to accredited people, such as an official visitor, in light of a complaint that is being considered. However, during consultations, the examples we were given of when these powers would be used did appear reasonable. Again, much will depend on the culture that develops in the new jail.
I think it is also important to note that while detainees have had their right to freedom removed as punishment for their crime, their right to freedom of speech should remain intact. These powers should only be used in the most serious circumstances and their use should be monitored closely to prevent abuse or corruption.
Chapter 4 of the bill provides the police and courts with custodial powers and clause 6 (3) deals with the Children and Young People Act. I am disappointed to see that the vulnerable status of children and young people is still not recognised in all legislation regarding corrections. Their vulnerable status, especially in regard to searches, will not be treated as such until perhaps the Children and Young People Bill of 2007 is passed, which could be some time. Even then, I doubt that this concern will be fully resolved when it comes to the AFP.
The ACT government’s failure to correct this problem promptly is disheartening given the number of times this issue has been raised in the Assembly and the vulnerable status of these people. Despite the human rights compliant search provisions introduced in the Children and Young People Amendment Act 2006, a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .