Page 1346 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These decisions are not made in the absence of deliberations and serious consideration. It is, in the government’s view, appropriate and right that the ultimate decision about custodial matters must lie with the chief executive of the justice department alone, and they are the ones who should be accountable for that decision. Dr Foskey’s amendment places the Official Visitor in the difficult position of being a de facto arbiter to a high-level decision where security and health decisions are at stake.
The decision made by the chief executive is reviewable under administrative law and can be examined by the Human Rights Commissioner or the Ombudsman. Drawing the Official Visitor into the mix potentially prejudices them if they make any recommendation to the minister. If the Official Visitor recommends the decision is right or wrong, the visitor is then susceptible to review themselves for a decision that should properly lie with the chief executive of the department.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.47): I want to point out that my amendment does not specify the Official Visitor. In fact, it does not specify who that person should be. It is in fact a safeguard for the chief executive officer as well as for the prisoner. Mr Corbell did add more specificity to this amendment than is, in fact, within it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 21A.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.48): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1362].
This amendment inserts a new clause 21A and is intended to ensure the independence and integrity of the corrections health services. While health professionals who work in a corrections environment will need some special skills, their health skills should be paramount. In order to advance the government’s professed health priorities, it is more appropriate that the chief health executive recruit health professionals. It is also essential that their reporting obligations are primarily to ACT Health rather than to corrections, which should only receive information which is necessary for security and safety considerations. This amendment clarifies that all therapeutic health professionals and not just the doctor appointed under section 21 (1) under the government’s amendment, which I nonetheless greeted happily, has the health of detainees as paramount responsibility.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.49): The government does not agree with this amendment. Clause 52 of the bill already provides for the provision of health services and the appointment of health professionals, through regulations, by the chief executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. Giving a further power of appointment to the chief executive of ACT Health is not conducive to providing a coherent health service. More importantly, the responsibility for managing custody cannot be divided into separate components. The chief executive has to be responsible for all aspects of custody.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .