Page 3113 - Week 07 - Thursday, 1 July 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
has opened and that system is still not operational. We know that three of those systems actually went missing when prisoners walked out with that system on them. (Second speaking period taken.)
We have had breaches of the internet policy and, interestingly enough, when that issue first arose, the minister’s office was unaware of any internet policy and it was actually my office that had to provide that to the media because his office was unable to find that.
As I said before, the human rights commissioner raised some concerns in her evidence to the estimates committee. She said that she had not conducted an audit since 2007 and she had no capacity to do so. When we have seen the alleged rape of a remandee, when we have seen prisoners on the roof, when we have had hep C transmissions, how Simon Corbell can claim that this is a human rights compliant prison is just impossible. How could he if there has been no audit of that facility and he is not funding the human rights commissioner to be able to do that?
I would like to put on the record here that the concerns that I raise and issues that I raise are in no way directed at the hardworking staff at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. I was given the honour of a tour of that centre the other day, and the staff are in a very difficult position. Because of the way the facility has been designed, because it has been delivered under scope, because of the political heat around the mismanagement at the political level, particularly the fake opening, the delays and the sudden rush when the government was being embarrassed, they are put in a very difficult position.
Of course they are very loyal to the government. They are loyal to the system and they are working hard. But Simon Corbell has not put these staff in an easy position, and I would like to put on the record that I acknowledge that. I acknowledge the hard work they are doing. I acknowledge the difficult position that they are put in and I commend them for the work that they are doing.
The minister really needs to explain what is going on and what he is going to do about it. I know the Hamburger review is going to occur, and there has been some toing and froing about why he is doing that review. And I must say that, in all the evidence I have looked at, both the Hansard and anywhere else, it is quite clear to me that the only reason we are having the scope of review that we are having, which is independent and looking at the terms of reference, is solely a result of the motion that was put here by the Liberals and amended by the Greens. I acknowledge that; that is why we are having the review that we are having. But drawing on the dissenting report, the recommendation is:
… the Minister report to the Assembly how the basic functions of the prison have been allowed to so comprehensively fail and what the Minister is doing to fix the situation.
I think that is a fairly reasonable recommendation. I think the focus needs to change from that of an obsession with human rights, which has clearly failed, to a focus on security, on safety, on discipline and on good management. And out of that will flow good treatment of the prisoners. What we do not want to see is more prisoners
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video