Page 1339 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that is clearly inadequate. I was surprised to hear that the coalition did not even become aware that the bill had been tabled until around late February or early March. Why did the ACT government not notify the coalition of the bill as soon as it was tabled or even think to show them an exposure draft? Like Assembly members, the coalition certainly was not notified about the final form of the bill until today.
The need for community consultation occurs not only at the start of a project, but also throughout its life. Just because the ACT government consulted with community organisations in the early phases of the prison development process, it does not mean ongoing consultation was not, and is not, required for this legislation and future legislative instruments. I am disappointed that the ACT government did not make a greater effort to work with the coalition and to address their concerns. The coalition’s papers on this legislation contain a number of good suggestions and I urge the government to give them serious consideration. There should at least be an explanation from all relevant agencies, not just corrections, as to why the coalition’s proposals should be implemented or rejected.
Another major problem facing community groups and MLAs is that we have not been able to read this bill in conjunction with the prison health plan as corrections and health are still negotiating its contents. We do not yet know if the policies and procedures for the prison health services will meet human rights requirements, will give priority to harm minimisation or will be effectively gutted by ostensible security and public safety imperatives.
For example, will a needle and syringe program be run? Such a program is already provided to the community, and I imagine it would be necessary to comply with this legislation and accord detainees their human rights. Deadly blood borne diseases are rife in the prison population, as we know. A prison sentence should not become a death sentence, which is the reality in many jurisdictions where corrections officers and populist politicians are unwilling to accept or implement realistic solutions to blood borne disease transmission problems that also address their legitimate security concerns.
Total abstinence is not a realistic solution. It never has been, and this is where the evidence based realists part company with authoritarian wishful thinkers. No prison has been able to totally stem the flow of drugs into jails. The level of coercion required to come close to achieving a no-drugs regime is so counterproductive to rehabilitation and therapeutic objectives that it completely undermines those objectives. It also contains internal contradictions in that it encourages unsafe practices and risky behaviours, such as sharing scarce and dirty needles and creating a prison premium for drugs and drug paraphernalia that results in increased violence, intimidation and distrust. Paradoxically, it may actually increase the danger to corrections staff by increasing antagonism and boosting the prevalence of communicable diseases in the prison population.
Evidence based responses are also required to address the problems of outlaw tattooing in jails. Again, it remains to be seen whether the government and corrections management are willing and able actually to deliver the exemplary health services that this bill envisages but does not actually prescribe.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .