Page 1667 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It started under whose watch? All of this progression forward started under whose watch? Mr Corbell’s. Do we see any credit being given for the vision that was there? No, none. What we have seen is a constant barrage of criticism from the moment that the prison was conceived through to the current date.
When we look at whether or not this minister has delivered for the people of the ACT, I think we have to conclude that he has. He has delivered a first-rate service. I hear these people bleating about a $500 a day exercise, but they do not say what it is compared with. Are we talking about $500 a day compared with Goulburn? They have got a great recidivism rate. That is a great training ground for people who want to be lawbreakers. This particular centre is all about restoration of people into the community. The whole philosophy is different. It does not come cheaply.
Can we just canvass the alternative from these people over here. Mr Corbell on this hand is saying, “We will accept responsibility for our own offenders, try to restore them to the community and make them not do it again.” With these guys, on the other hand, their original proposal, and I presume the current one, because they are bleating about the $500 a day cost, is to say, “The alternative is to put them back in New South Wales.” Putting them back in New South Wales is a good idea—it worked in 1788; it can work this year! There is no change in their approach to corrections—no change since 1788, just the warehousing model.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you look back at all of the contributions that those opposite have made in trying to prevent recidivism, in trying to support families, the forgotten victims of crime, in trying to come up with processes to stop it and then, once it has occurred, to stop it happening again, you will not find much, actually.
I was in this place when the original thought about a prison was mooted. To his credit, now Senator Gary Humphries—I think he was Attorney-General at the time; I think Mrs Dunne actually worked with him then—had this idea that we should accept responsibility for our own offenders. And I applaud that. The problem was, though, he wanted to have it privately owned and operated. The Labor Party does not agree with that. We need to take community responsibility for a community problem, and come up with a community solution for it. Where did we deliver this? We delivered this through Mr Corbell. Was it his fault that the contractors could not deliver on time? No. Is Mr Corbell an expert in the intricacies, the technical intricacies, of an up-to-date, state-of-the-art electronic prison? No, of course he is not; he cannot be expected to. He put out a contract and expected it to be delivered. Now, it has been delivered, and we are still going through the odd teething phase. And you would expect that, in something which is not 18 months old, particularly with the delivery of programs within it.
At the end of the day, you can rabbit on as much as you like about electrical wires and brickwork, but it is the hearts and the souls of those people who are living in the AMC which are the important part, and this minister is delivering constantly those programs to make sure that they do not go back into the AMC. Have a look at some of the programs. Have a look at some of the training in employment that we have given for the women and the blokes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video