Page 577 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
heard you in silence, and I expect you to give him the same respect. Yesterday was an appalling example of childish behaviour, and I will not put up with it. I will give a
warning, very quickly, and then there will be no repeat of the warning; it will be a naming pretty smartly thereafter. Members of the opposition are on notice. Minister.
MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Another day, another censure motion. No imagination, no thought—simply an attempt to mount an argument which has no substance whatsoever. What did we hear from the Liberal Party today? We have just heard two arguments. The first was about prisoner capacity and the ongoing incapacity of Mr Hanson to properly understand how a prison operates on a day-to-day basis, regardless of the number of beds available within the facility. The second, of course, was the argument that somehow I, as the minister, need to be on the ground checking every day that stated policy and procedure is being implemented in the corrections environment. Of course, that is an absurd and completely irrational suggestion from Mr Hanson.
Let me deal with both of these issues in sequence. When it comes to prisoner numbers, as Mr Hanson knows from previous answers I have given in this place and in committee hearings, the bed capacity of the prison is 300. As simple as that. As I have also said in this place and elsewhere, the utilisation of those 300 beds will depend on the classification of prisoners held in the facility and their requirements for protection, strict protection or other measures to deal with their management and safe custody.
What is it about that that Mr Hanson fails to understand? It is not a difficult concept; it is not a complicated concept; it is not unusual to the ACT. Prisons have an overall capacity and then, depending on whether there is a need to separate prisoners from each other, to place them in isolation or to take other similar measures, that has an impact on the total utilisation rate of those beds. It is as simple as that, but Mr Hanson apparently just does not get it. This is the weak and completely false argument that we hear from Mr Hanson in relation to these matters.
Let me go into this issue in a bit more detail. I said on 7 December last year:
These figures will vary from time to time. It is not the case that there is a particular figure below 300 that is the absolute maximum that can be utilised. It will depend on the mix of prisoners and the requirements in terms of their accommodation and their separation, in particular their separation from other prisoners.
So I am on the record as stating that operational requirements may limit the total number of beds that can be utilised. But I am also on the record as saying there is no particular number below 300 that is the absolute maximum that can be utilised. So for Mr Hanson to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.
I also draw to members’ attention the modelling and the assessment that the government undertook before the prison was constructed that looked at forecasts for prisoner numbers over the medium to long term. The Department of Treasury undertook modelling in 2003 as part of the government’s assessment of the bed capacity required at the prison. That modelling indicated that the medium forecast for 2030 was 260 beds, and that the high forecast for the same year was 274, both within the 300-bed capacity that the government ultimately determined to build. There can be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video