Page 1418 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
terms of fundamental structural failure, in terms of major disturbances, in terms of fundamental failures of infrastructure or indeed in terms of issues such as prisoners lighting fires and other major serious security breaches. They did not occur.
It is not me, Mr Hanson, asserting that this is my measure of performance; it is Mr Hamburger. It is the independent reviewer that you called for. The independent reviewer that you called for made that determination. The challenge for those opposite, when reading the Hamburger review, is not just to highlight the problems, as legitimate as that is. It is also to view those problems in the context of what the reviewer concludes as significant achievements.
Mr Hamburger makes it clear that there are many significant achievements. He highlights, for example, that a strong basis has been established for a culture to protect human rights. Indeed, he goes on to conclude that there is no problem with the human rights culture at the prison, contrary to the assertions of those opposite. He goes on to conclude that best practice outcomes are being supported and facilitated by the Corrections Management Act that the government has put in place and the policies, procedures and plans that operate within that.
He goes on to conclude that all the key stakeholders from the government, senior bureaucrats, the staff of the prison, their union, independent scrutiny agencies and the community sector who work with the prison are committed to the aims of it and share a commitment to a particular agreed outcome—that is, a human rights compliance prison with a strong focus on rehabilitation. He goes on to say that this is a unique achievement in a corrections environment. Those are not my words but the words of the independent reviewer.
So, as minister, do I accept responsibility for when things go wrong? Yes, I do. Do I accept responsibility for the achievements of the department that I am responsible for? Yes, I do. I take that responsibility seriously. I commend the work of our corrections staff for the very difficult, challenging and important work they have done over the last 12 to 18 months. There have been challenges, but there have also been very significant achievements. For example, Mr Hamburger concludes that induction processes are strong, that case management is equally strong, that accommodation and equipment standards are of a high standard, that programs are being made available tailored to the needs of detainees and that the therapeutic college is a best practice model, an excellent model. He goes on to say that the transitional release capacity at the prison is an excellent model. He goes on to conclude that through-care services appear to be sufficient to ensure quality intervention and education programs.
These strengths are not to be ignored. That is the real challenge, I think, in this debate today: have the courage to recognise not only the difficulties and the problems but also the achievements. The establishment of a new prison is not an easy or straightforward undertaking. It is a complex undertaking. But those opposite seem to think that because there have been problems that means the undertaking has been a failure. It has not been a failure. It has been overall a success—it has been a success. That is not the view of me; that is not what I am asserting. That is what the independent reviewer concludes—that there have been significant achievements that achieve best practice in the Australian correctional environment. Yes, there is much
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video