Page 3824 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
too late. Indeed, the application has been with the Radiation Council for quite some time. But what we are proposing is an Australian first, and the Radiation Council are aware that if they grant approval for the use of the X-ray body scanner here in the ACT, it will be followed by many similar applications in other jurisdictions. So an approval granted here has significant ramifications for all equivalent licensing bodies in other states and territories. I understand their caution and their need to be fully satisfied on all the issues, and I look forward to their final advice on the matter.
In the interim, though, we do need to resolve any doubt that may exist about when strip searches can be conducted and in what circumstances they are permitted. Of course, as I say, this issue will become largely academic when the X-ray scanner is, hopefully, approved for use in the Alexander Maconochie Centre. I know that the new Bimberi facility will also be potentially contemplating the use of such a facility.
It is also important to emphasise that, under the Corrections Management Act 2007, strip searches are just one of a number of methods Corrective Services officers have available to them to prevent contraband, such as illicit drugs, weapons, and items that can be used to self-harm, from entering correctional centres. These methods include the use of drug detection dogs, random cell and area searches, routine frisk searches, metal detection scanners, routine supervision, camera observation, and urinalysis.
I think a point that was missed in Dr Foskey’s critique of this bill was her failure to acknowledge that this issue is as much about a duty of care as it is about safety and security in a Corrective Services environment. The territory has a duty of care for incarcerated persons, and it has a duty of care to ensure, for example, that they do not self-harm when they are in prison. If we do not have the ability to properly search detainees, whether it is by X-ray scanner, which is certainly the preferred method, or by more traditional search techniques such as strip searching, one of my very real concerns is that detainees will bring in items that will not be used to harm others, although that is a risk, but will be used to harm themselves.
I can just imagine the critique of failure that would come from the crossbench and others if the government permitted a situation where we did not do everything reasonable to prevent someone from trying to self-harm. That weighs on me particularly heavily because, when a person is put into custody, they are entrusted to the state for their safety and security. They are deprived of their liberty and they are entrusted into the care of the state. The state—in this case the territory—has an obligation to make sure that, to the greatest and most reasonable extent, they are protected not only from harming others but from harming themselves. That is an issue I think members should also keep in mind.
In conclusion, the bill ensures the ongoing safety and security of corrections officers, detainees and visitors to our correctional centres. As I say, we hope that this will be an interim measure pending the final approval for the operation of the SOTER X-ray body scanner. I would like to thank members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question put:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .