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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (29 October) . . Page.. 2455 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: That is right - the early release of the prisoner who was subject to the allegations. Mr Speaker, there was not a decision by the head of Corrective Services to release the prisoner. Of course, there is no capacity on the part of the director to release a prisoner at all. That is a decision to be made by a court. The decision was made by the court. Mr Cahill, the Chief Magistrate, heard the application to release the detainee early.

Mr Speaker, the reason the subsequent application was made is very simple. There was an allegation afoot at that time, which I understand emanated at least in part from that particular detainee, that there had been improper offers made to him in respect of the future of some custodial officers of the PDC. Now, an investigation was getting under way. The question of whether this detainee had been prevailed upon was in issue. Corrective Services felt, quite appropriately, that to have him remain as a detainee in the centre while allegations were being investigated about the relationship between him and custodial officers at that centre would be a quite impossible situation to have to deal with. Quite appropriately, the director decided that he should apply to the court to have the last, I think, two or three weeks of the weekends of the detainee's detention remitted in order that he would not be a detainee in the centre during the period of that investigation. That is an entirely proper and appropriate thing to do. I fully support the director in having made that application which, of course, was supported by the court.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister is this: Is the Minister confident that the police investigation into the affair was as broad-ranging as necessary to address the serious allegations, given that the day following the initial report to you that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations a police and customs raid on the Periodic Detention Centre uncovered a cache of drugs?

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, I am. I met with the chief officer investigating this matter shortly before that weekend that you refer to and I discussed extensively with him, and with the assistant commissioner, Mr Stoll, the circumstances of the investigation. They explained to me the very extensive nature of their analysis and their investigation, the way in which they conducted that investigation and the conclusions that they had reached.

The evidence they put before me convinced me absolutely that they had approached this matter thoroughly and comprehensively and that the advice they were providing about the outcome was advice well based on the evidence. I am absolutely certain about that. The question of whether there should have been some other approach, I think, is hypothetical. I do not know whether there was any better way of conducting an investigation than the way it was conducted. I think it was very thorough and I commend the officers concerned for their work.

The suggestion that we should link the discovery of drugs in the PDC subsequently with this, I think, is misleading. I would see the discovery of drugs in the circumstances in which they were discovered the following weekend as proof of the effectiveness of the PDC as an institution. Bear in mind that this is a case where people broke into the PDC by cutting a hole in the fence and left a cache of drugs, presumably for the use of a detainee, or detainees, during the weekend.

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