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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (16 April) . . Page.. 908 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I am not sure why there have been more prisoners on average in the Remand Centre in recent days. It may be that the police are apprehending more people; it may be that the courts are adopting a harder line. I do not know. But, whatever the reason, if the trend continues, it certainly gives rise to a concern that we need to make sure that we properly accommodate people at that centre or in some alternative facility.

We now have the Periodic Detention Centre, which provides for an alternative form of post-conviction detention in the Territory. That, as such, does not take much pressure off the Remand Centre. The people who are in the PDC would otherwise probably be in a gaol somewhere in New South Wales. The question is not, in a sense, relieved by the creation of the PDC. Perhaps it has given us a greater spur to examine the other elements of our corrections policy over which we do not have much control at the present time. I have made clear my view that the ACT needs to engage in an assessment of whether it can afford, and needs to have, its own correctional facility for post-conviction prisoners. Although there are many problems with that proposal, I believe that we need to put it on the agenda and need to have that discussion start within the community.

Mr Speaker, I must say that I appreciate Ms Follett's restraint in this debate. It would be easy to make some comments that were prejudging of the coronial inquiry presently under way in respect of the unfortunate incident yesterday at the Remand Centre. Clearly, this is only the beginning of what will have to be a more extensive process of scrutiny - whether it is by an Assembly committee or some other body - of the conduct of our policy with respect to detainees, and, in particular, whether the Remand Centre fulfils the needs of a community at the end of the twentieth century. My view is that it probably does not.

The question that Ms Follett raised about the length of time that detainees are spending on remand in the centre is a matter which I note as well. The period is determined entirely by the courts. There has been some debate about whether we can reduce periods that both civil and criminal matters are taking between the point where they are ready to be heard by a judge or magistrate and the point where they come on for hearing by one of those persons. That has been a debate in the context of whether we should appoint another judge or magistrate, or several magistrates perhaps.

Mr Speaker, in general terms, the ACT has a relatively good record on the period that people need to wait to have justice delivered to them, whether civil justice or criminal justice. On a comparison with other States we stand reasonably good scrutiny, taking into account the fact that we do not have an intermediate court, like the District Court or County Court, here in the ACT. Nonetheless, it is true to say that justice delayed is justice denied. Even having to wait nine months or 12 months between being ready to have a civil case heard in the court and having it actually heard by that court is a matter of some inconvenience in some cases. In some cases it involves very considerable loss to those persons concerned. If you are in custody you need to wait several months before a hearing in, say, a trial in the Supreme Court. That period can be quite distressing, particularly if it transpires that you are deemed to be innocent.

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