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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2715 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

detainees in the centre. Every effort will be made to ensure that they are kept separately and distinctly.

The government is seeking to legislate in respect of this prospect or possibility. We are looking at the very distinct possibility, the anticipated possibility, that we will sooner rather than later have a situation where someone will be turned away from a periodic detention centre and they will be told to go home. They will present and there will not be room or capacity. They will be told simply to go home and to try again the following weekend. In terms of corrections policy and the integrity of sentencing and punishment and the systems we have in place, I think it is quite unacceptable that somebody sentenced by the courts to periodic detention cannot basically participate in the scheme, cannot undergo the sentence or the punishment, because we simply don't have the capacity for them.

The amendments seek to clarify that purpose and protect against that eventuality. They seek to ensure that if we ever arrive at those circumstances, the law is absolutely clear and that we are not breaching the rights of either remandees or detainees. They seek to ensure that the law is explicit, clear and is being abided by. We are simply protecting against a situation that we believe will almost be inevitable-that we will run out of space sooner rather than later and we will have people presenting for punishment pursuant to court order and not be able to undergo it.

MR STEFANIAK (5.10): I thank the Chief Minister for his explanation, and I take it he was talking to both amendments 4 and 5.

Mr Stanhope: Yes, I was.

MR STEFANIAK: Might I say at the outset that whilst again it is not ideal, the opposition does appreciate the practical problems and also the difference between amendments 4 and 5. I understand that amendment No 4 to the Periodic Detention Act is necessary because of what is proposed in relation to remandees at Symonston. The opposition will be supporting that. I note and appreciate what the Attorney said about the UN convention and the desirability and need in relation to both acts to keep separate remandees and prisoners who are periodic detainees. I am sure Corrective Services will do their best to do that. However, I can appreciate the government's problem in relation to what it is doing at Symonston. The second point I want to make is that periodic detention is, of course, at weekends and there is obviously the potential for usage during the weekdays, which may on occasions assist.

The opposition has a slightly different view in relation to amendment No 5, which relates to the Remand Centres Act. I think there is the distinct possibility-and I note it hasn't happened yet-which was alluded to by the Chief Minister, of periodic detainees staying, even overnight, at a remand centre; in a centre where there are remandees. I suppose it is not quite like the situation in which most Australian jurisdictions ensure that there is a separation of the people on remand from the people sentenced to imprisonment.

The situation is somewhat the reverse here because many of the periodic detainees have been sentenced for lesser offences than some of the people on remand-I don't think we have murderers on periodic detention in the ACT. But certainly there are some people on

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