Page 4133 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
international cases. The powers provided by the bill are also crafted to reflect modern administrative law principles. The bill aims to leave no doubt as to what is intended to be lawful and what is not. The bill clearly sets the boundaries of any power allocated to the territory’s government and corrections authority.
The ACT’s Human Rights Act 2004 protects fundamental rights. Any limits on these rights are only permissible if they are authorised by a territory law, they are reasonable and they are justifiable in a democratic society. The Human Rights Act 2004 is not a criminal’s charter, as has been suggested by some in this Assembly. Human rights law recognises all of the conditions of humanity, from positive to negative.
Consistent with section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2004, the bill sets out reasonable limitations upon a sentenced offender’s human rights and other detainees’ rights, consistent with the objects of the bill. The bill stipulates the minimum conditions and management of people whose right to liberty is lawfully limited. These minimum conditions are akin to the best practice of jails in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.
To meet the primary function of holding detainees in secure custody, the bill creates a range of powers that uphold the safety and good order of corrections centres. The bill includes extensive powers and procedures to prevent weapons, illegal drugs and other contraband from being smuggled into the prison.
The bill enables corrections staff to separate, and if necessary segregate, prisoners who are at risk of harm, at risk of causing harm or at risk of spreading disease.
A modern procedure for dealing with disciplinary breaches is also included. The disciplinary system used by the bill will also enable a clear delineation between prosecutions for criminal offences and the imposition of administrative penalties for disciplinary breaches.
Historically, prisons were seen as the absolute realm of governments and the agencies assigned to run prisons. There was an underlying idea that prisoners were no longer part of the community and a fear that a recognition of any rights would undermine the purpose of imprisonment.
Over the years, that position has changed. Prisoners are part of the community, and as a community we should be satisfied that the punishment imposed upon an offender is being carried out. We should also be satisfied that the administration of the imprisonment is humane and fair. There is little merit in applying the full force of the criminal law to a person while hypocritically treating a person as if they had no legal rights.
To ensure our prison and remand centres work according to law, the bill includes provisions for the inspection of correctional centres and the investigation of complaints made by detainees. The bill also sets out rights of review for detainees who are segregated or disciplined. These protections allow the community to see that detainees are not treated arbitrarily. These protections for detainees protect us all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .