Page 1007 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The people in the Belconnen Remand Centre, as I have said before in this place, in many cases are found not guilty, or if found guilty are given non-custodial sentences. The courts have judged only 17.5 per cent as deserving a custodial sentence. Many receive non-custodial sentences in deference to the amount of time spent in the Belconnen Remand Centre awaiting trial. That, of course, is another issue. The fact is that the time spent in custody awaiting trial has tended to rise over past years. I give full marks to the Government for its proposals in this area, with reforms of the Magistrates Court which will shorten the gap between charging, committal and trial. However, I feel, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we need to know more about the details. The Minister has stated in his tabling speech that feasibility studies are to be conducted, but we do not know when or how these studies are to be conducted. That is information that is desperately needed by those who want to see improvements in facilities for detainees.
Another issue that has been raised with regard to corrections policy is the renegotiation of payments for ACT prisoners in New South Wales gaols. The Government has successfully reduced the cost to the ACT by some $8 per prisoner per day. The Government is to be congratulated on this outcome. However, I suggest that the money saved could be targeted specifically at court diversion programs. Court diversion is recognised in Paying the Price as an adjunct to the development of an ACT correctional institution. I am aware that community service orders and other alternative sentencing options are already in use in the ACT. How much more could be achieved in producing a range of options to divert cases from the court system before hearing or sentencing? The report outlines some of these practices. If we have made savings in the areas of corrections, I feel that this money could be directed at providing an even better result in reducing the number of prisoners who are sent to New South Wales gaols.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Government's agreement to the establishment of advisory bodies - the Corrections Liaison Committee, which has already been established as a forum for operational level matters; and the Corrections Advisory Committee, to provide policy advice and support for the Minister. I feel that these two additions to the corrections services portfolio will be of enormous benefit in providing an effective conduit, linking the community, people concerned with corrections policy, Remand Centre inmates, corrections staff, the courts, the department and the Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to hearing from the Minister regarding his timetable for the feasibility studies which form such a large part of the Government's response to this report.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.14), in reply: I thank Mr Humphries and Ms Szuty for their broadly constructive comments. It would be very easy in a number of State parliaments for a debate on the future of corrections to degenerate into a "Are you tough enough?", or "Are you too weak on prisoners?" argument. I suspect that in most State parliaments around Australia that is the way this sort of debate would go. I thank both Mr Humphries and Ms Szuty for acknowledging that we have inherited a major problem here. It really is a case of cleaning out a fairly messy stable, and there is no possibility of a simple and immediate answer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .