Page 2341 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Madam Deputy Speaker, today I introduce the Corrections and Sentencing Legislation Amendment Bill, which contains a number of legislative amendments to enable ACT Corrective Services to provide services more efficiently and effectively. The government is concerned to ensure ongoing review, revision and improvement of corrective services in the territory. This bill is a part of that process.
ACT Corrective Services and the Sentence Administration Board operate in accordance with a legislative framework that includes the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act and the Corrections Management Act. The bill addresses an important issue raised in the 2011 Independent review of operations at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, ACT Corrective Services, prepared by Knowledge Consulting, known as the Hamburger review.
Section 5.2.4.5, recommendation 4 of that review, tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, on 5 April 2011, recommended that ACT Corrective Services work with appropriate authorities to review the detainee disciplinary process to address concerns relating to its complexity and to facilitate a simpler process.
On 20 March 2012 the government tabled a report on progress with implementing the recommendations of the 2011 Knowledge Consulting report. A review of the detainee discipline process has been one of the important areas of that progress. The review confirmed the observations that Mr Hamburger and his team made; namely, that it is important that the disciplinary process balances procedural fairness, timeliness, flexibility and discretion in decision making in this area, and that the process be clear and easily understood by detainees.
At present, detainee discipline provisions impose overly burdensome administrative requirements on corrections officers. The current provisions refer to separate roles for a primary decision maker, administrator and investigator. In practice, this has led to confusion among detainees about how the process functions. Therefore, it is critical that the current system be made more effective and responsive while continuing to ensure rights are properly protected.
The amendments improve the efficiency of the detainee discipline process by removing the “administrator” role from the process and making the “investigator” role a step to be used at the discretion of the presiding officer. The removal of the “administrator” will speed up the process of detainee discipline and alleviate unnecessary delays that impact on detainees.
The changes proposed have been discussed with the Human Rights Commission and brought to the attention of the Ombudsman’s office and the Office of the Public Advocate. The streamlined provisions comply with the Human Rights Act and still provide transparency in the context of administrative decisions made by corrections staff and procedural fairness for detainees. In addition, the provisions will allow a detainee to request a review of their alleged disciplinary breach and allow for the director-general to review an alleged breach of discipline decision of her own motion if appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video