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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3460 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

also been the subject of quite a few very disturbing comments from people in the community sector who work with prisoners.

Fundamental to these concerns is the fact that essentially the home environment becomes the prison. Home is transformed by home detention from one's own place into a space that can be visited at any time of the day or night, and from which this one member of the household cannot leave unless they have been granted permission by the Corrective Services officer. The transformation of the home applies to the prisoner and to the householders-to their family, to their children, or mother, father or partner. On the other hand, the person is not away from their family, in prison.

In ideal circumstances it could work well. The household could receive whatever support and other services they need to cope with the imprisonment and to assist if there are other problems in the family. In other circumstances it could be terrible. It is easy to say that being at home is better than the person being entirely absent, but we do not know that. Criticisms and the studies depend in part on the details of the system.

The first 18 months of the New South Wales system was assessed, but the assessment at that relatively early stage could not look into recidivism and post-sentencing effects, and did not compare the effects on families of imprisonment in a prison versus prison in a home. I have asked whether the department knows of any studies that address these questions. I know the time is tight, but that is not our doing. Our role here is to ensure good laws. The department has been working to prepare for the introduction of this regime in the lead-up to the bill. I understand that they hope they could begin as soon as two weeks after passage of the bill, if indeed it does pass, and it appears that it will.

Home detention is not an alternative to imprisonment. Mr Moore and the department have been quite clear about that, and that is to be commended. Community service orders and weekend detention orders and treatment orders are alternatives to home detention. But this is a terrible rush. We have had this legislation for just over two weeks, as I said. Mr Moore has said that the urgency comes from the appalling conditions at Belconnen Remand Centre. Did I hear Mr Moore say three weeks?

Mr Moore: No.

MS TUCKER: Just as well. Mr Moore has said that the urgency comes from the appalling conditions at Belconnen Remand Centre. It is true; the conditions are appalling. However, we are very concerned that we do see really tight controls on this.

Mr Hargreaves and, I believe, Mr Osborne will argue against using home detention for remandees. They see the imposition on the home as unjust for someone who has not been found guilty. The screening test for eligibility for home detention would, one might expect, largely include people who might otherwise have been judged eligible for bail. Release on bail would be very different indeed from home detention.

The remand centre needs to be rebuilt and it needs more staff. The staff ratios need to be higher, not lower, after the extension is built, and home detention will not ease the burden. It shouldn't and it won't. So where is the rush? Home detentions fundamental questions require some detailed answers, and we do not have that detail. If we did not go

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