Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (16 April) . . Page.. 907 ..

MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, whilst I support the Bill that has been put forward by Mr Humphries, I do have some concerns about the operation of the Remand Centre. I am very concerned at the numbers of people who are there, at the mix of people who are there and at the resources that we, as a community, are allocating to the proper operation of that centre. I want to flag with members that at some future time it may well be worth a committee of the Assembly or some other body having a close look at the Remand Centre. I think that as a facility it has served the Territory for a long time now, but it may well be that it is looking a bit old fashioned as well. I recall debates in earlier Assemblies about the treatment and the facilities for prisoners with a psychiatric illness. In fact, I recollect that special provision had been made at the Remand Centre for detainees with a psychiatric illness.

It may well be that we need to revisit that issue and look at it, not as a political point-scoring exercise, not in order to beat up the Government or previous governments, but in order to come to some calm and rational conclusions about what might be the best way to continue providing this community facility in the best interests of our community and also in the best interests of the detainees, at least some of whom have not been convicted. Mr Speaker, I think we may also want to revisit the question of Belconnen Remand Centre being used to detain illegal immigrants, which the ACT does as a service for the Commonwealth, at a price. If that is reducing facilities for ACT detainees we might want to examine that issue. I will leave it with members to think about, Mr Speaker. As I say, we support the current Bill before the Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.40), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank the Opposition for its support for the Bill. It is not a particularly significant Bill, although, clearly, given the things that we have been discussing in the course of this debate about resourcing the Belconnen Remand Centre, it would be unfortunate if a situation were to ensue whereby the centre became a de facto prison where those who were appealing against convictions in one of the ACT courts were effectively housed throughout the duration of their appeal, which could last some time - several years in some cases. That minor matter has been corrected by this Bill and, as I say, I welcome the support of the Opposition.

I share the concern that Ms Follett has indicated to the Assembly about the Remand Centre. In fact, I have made it quite clear on previous occasions that I think the Remand Centre is a major problem. Members may be aware that the Remand Centre was designed by the person who designed the Katingal Wing at Long Bay Gaol. Indeed, I think the design is almost identical to Long Bay Gaol's Katingal Wing and that centre in New South Wales has closed. It is no longer operational.

Ms Follett: It was inhumane. That was the reason.

MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Follett reminds me that it was closed because it was inhumane. We continue to use our version of Katingal and I think it is most important that we raise the priority of a corrections debate in this Territory. There has not been a strong one in the past and the question of how we deal with our prisoners is an increasingly important one.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .