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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4587 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

fear for this legislation that the Assembly is considering that the ability to send people to Goulburn will be used to teach certain remandees a lesson. That is absolutely what I do not want to see. My amendment proposes that only in circumstances where Canberra's facilities are full can you even contemplate sending somebody interstate. I think that that is a reasonable constraint to put on both the Government and our corrections system. As I have said, I do not want to see this legislation brought into play in any but the most exceptional circumstances. It is not to become routine, and I do not believe that it should ever be brought into play in order to punish or to teach a lesson to a particular remandee.

There are huge disadvantages to people on remand being sent to Goulburn Gaol. The most obvious disadvantage is the distance that it is from Canberra. It is an hour by road. This would make it extremely difficult for a remandee to enjoy the kinds of facilities and access to services that anybody in Canberra would enjoy. For instance, visiting rights would be severely curtailed for a remandee who was taken to Goulburn; but, perhaps more significantly, that person's ability to prepare for their defence and consult with legal advisers would be severely constrained. Mr Speaker, I have already said that I accept that detainees in Belconnen during periods of severe overcrowding suffer enormous disadvantage, but the disadvantage is worsened considerably by their removal to Goulburn. Their removal is indeed just a short-term emergency measure.

Mr Speaker, it is my wish, through this amendment, to constrain the operation of this legislation. I make no apology for that. It is my view that only in circumstances where remandees cannot be accommodated in this Territory should we even contemplate sending them elsewhere. When Mr Humphries said that it is not up to politicians to interfere in this process and it is not up to the courts, he was being somewhat disingenuous. He has involved us politicians by putting the legislation before us. Were we expected just to swallow it whole? That is not the way we do things in this Assembly. When you ask us to consider a very serious matter like transferring to the New South Wales prison system remandees who have not been convicted, I for one, and I know many others as well, want to go into it chapter and verse.

Mr Humphries: They go to the remand centre, not the prison.

MS FOLLETT: I accept Mr Humphries's interjection. Remandees who are taken to Goulburn Gaol will be held in the remand facility at Goulburn Gaol rather than in the gaol. That is certainly true. Nevertheless, it is a very significant step to remove them from our Territory, our court system and our legal system to another State. That step should be taken only in extreme circumstances.

I share Mr Humphries's view about the expertise and professionalism of all of the staff involved in the corrections system. I have spoken to many of them. I was very impressed by them, as I am indeed impressed by the staff at Goulburn Gaol. Nevertheless, we have been asked to legislate, and I think it is entirely appropriate for us to say to the Government, "If you want to do this, we are going to constrain your ability to do it". The courts are already involved by having ruled that the administrator did not have the power to remove people from Canberra to Goulburn. For Mr Humphries to say that it is not a matter for the courts is again only a superficial look at the issue. The courts have already been asked to intervene, and they have.

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