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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2904 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Five, what design principles should it incorporate? Six, how could daily prisoner regimes be integrated with existing community services and local industry? Seven, where should a correctional facility be located? Eight, what role should the region play in the development of an ACT correctional facility? Nine, what other issues need to be considered before any facility is established in the ACT? The committee considers these questions highly pertinent.

In order to inform ourselves of the latest developments affecting corrective facilities we decided on an informal and speedy examination of the issues. We were briefed by a highly qualified criminologist, Mr David Biles, about the issues involved in building, financing, administering and managing a correctional facility and the rehabilitation of prisoners. Again, to get a better understanding of the issues, we also decided to inspect three correctional facilities in Queensland, three in New South Wales and the ACT's own facilities.

In Queensland, although I did not attend, the other committee members inspected Lotus Glen, Barollan and Woodford. Each illustrates different designs and management styles. Lotus Glen is a State-run centre, Barollan is privately run by the Corrections Corporation of Australia and Woodford is run by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, which went through a competitive tender process. It is a state-of-the-art prison incorporating the latest technology, design and management practices.

In New South Wales we inspected Junee, the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater and the Mulawa women's correctional facility. We were made aware that Junee was the first privately managed correctional facility in New South Wales, and we also learnt that the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre is the largest correctional facility in Australia, with 900 inmates of various classifications but mainly unsentenced remandees.

In the ACT we inspected our two correctional facilities - the Belconnen Remand Centre and the Symonston Periodic Detention Centre. We were appalled - I think "appalled" is an understatement - by the overcrowded and poor-quality conditions at the Remand Centre. The committee benefited from a detailed briefing by the ACT's Director of Corrective Services, Mr James Ryan. He told us about the Remand Centre, the Periodic Detention Centre, arrangements with the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services to house ACT prisoners and options for housing ACT prisoners in the future.

Following these inspections and briefings, the committee carefully considered what we had seen and heard. Initially, it would be fair to say that we were sceptical as to whether there was a need for the ACT to build its own prison, but we were impressed by the great advances in correctional facilities and practices which display a humanitarian and caring emphasis far different to what existed in Long Bay and Goulburn years ago. We were also swayed by the argument put forward on a number of occasions during this informal inquiry that the most important factor which affects recidivism is the maintenance of strong family relationships during incarceration. Often transport is a problem for the families of prisoners. It would be much easier for the families of ACT prisoners to maintain family contact if their loved ones served their sentence in the Territory rather than in New South Wales facilities.

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