Page 256 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Victorian government invested a small percentage of their corrections budget in programs to prevent reoffending, prior to and after release, and it had a significant impact. This compared to New South Wales which at the time was investing little in programs to prevent reoffending, and there was a marked difference between the two states’ reoffending rates. Only a few weeks ago, there was a report released which showed that up to 80 per cent of prisoners in New South Wales had a mental illness.
The ACT government have, to their credit, worked to establish a prison based on human rights principles that recognises the value in providing an environment in which a prisoner has the ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society and has worked to establish programs for rehabilitation in the AMC. However, we have a number of ongoing concerns about the continued engagement and provision of services to prisoners, particularly after they have left the AMC. Whilst it is an understandable technique to gradually reduce dependency on prison services, the manner in which this is implemented has to consider the practicalities of the situation prisoners are in.
It is an acknowledged and documented fact that a significant proportion of inmates suffer from mental illness and, as a part of that, continuing medication and treatment are required, yet it is incredibly difficult for prisoners released from the AMC to access basic medical services. Prisoners reliant upon antipsychotics and antidepressants can make genuine improvements to their health, provided they continue with these treatments upon release.
When the state makes the decision via the judicial process to deprive a person of liberty, the state must also recognise that it has chosen to disconnect that person from the regular services provided by the community. To that end, when a person has returned to society, having had many years disconnected from basic social services, the state must recognise that this person will find it difficult to reconnect without assistance.
For the vast majority of prisoners with a mental illness, it is the first time they have received a diagnosis or any form of medication. This is obviously a reflection on the provision of mental health services also. However, we need to be prepared for the fact that someone is likely to return to the prison system when they are unable, if unassisted, to continue necessary treatment in the community.
It is difficult enough for existing residents to secure regular GP services, let alone former inmates of the AMC. The provision of care should not stop at the front door of the prison and, whilst the government have acknowledged that through-care and after-care could be improved, not much has yet been done yet. The government have given an indication that they will develop a through-care and after-care plan but it does not seem that such a plan has yet been developed, which is a concern, given that we are almost a year into the operation of the AMC.
Moreover, as the Greens have maintained continually, we need to be doing more to limit the transmission of blood-borne viruses within the AMC. We have concerns about the collection of data, when and how people contract these diseases and how this will enable the development of an effective evidence-based policy to reduce the transmission of disease within the prison. We cannot adopt a head-in-the-sand approach when it comes to the presence of needle sharing and drug use in prisons.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video