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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3482 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

responsibility model, which involves a different relationship between staff and prisoners, rather than the control model of the traditional prison would be more suited to the type of prison the ACT community and this committee have in mind.

The committee has included in the report six recommendations regarding what it considers to be the best practice for taking care of the health needs of prisoners. These focus on the individual health needs of each prisoner and include drug detoxification and rehabilitation facilities within the facility. As already mentioned, over three-quarters of our expected prison population will have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. It was also reported that over half of the Belconnen Remand Centre detainees use heroin. There is a need for the Government to establish very clear drug policies for the prison.

The committee noted that such notions as the provision of drug-taking equipment for prisoners and supervised injecting rooms within the facility require further community debate. We also identified a number of associated legal issue which will need to be addressed, such as the legal liability of the Government in the case of a prisoner contracting HIV from another prisoner. The committee believes that drug policies in prisons should reflect the drug policies of the outside community and that drug rehabilitation programs should be a high priority and well resourced.

One of the other major justifications for establishing the ACT prison is that families can more easily visit prisoners. Because of that, the committee believes that the Government must ensure that adequate public transport is available for visitors and that the prison operator will need to ensure that visiting facilities are comfortable and appropriately designed. There should be play areas for children and facilities for babies and young children. The committee believes that prisoners who are parents should be given wide access to visits from their children, which would benefit the whole community. The committee considered other aspects of prison life for female prisoners, indigenous prisoners and those with special needs, such as the elderly, repeat offenders and those with non-English backgrounds, and made recommendations accordingly.

One topic covered by the report which is of lesser importance but which will probably attract the most attention by the media and Assembly members is the question of public or private financing, ownership, construction and management of the facility. The committee visited both privately and publicly managed prisons and found that both models can successfully operate in Australia. The question is commonly framed as a simple choice between a public or a private prison. However, there are many combinations of public/private ownership and management. Whilst it is not necessary, obviously private sector companies strongly favour having their hands on the reins from the beginning of the project. Some members of the committee could see the sense in this. However, a mix of private and public involvement is achievable with good results.

The Government has not been able to provide sufficient evidence to the committee which would justify excluding a publicly managed prison. Equally, the arguments against private prisons were not strong enough to justify excluding this option. The number of privately managed prisons is steadily rising in Australia and is expected to top 25 per cent next year. The committee was made aware of a number of perceived advantages common to privately managed prisons, such as reduced costs, efficiency, quality of service and innovation.

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