Page 1235 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Greens, and my former colleague Meredith Hunter, worked hard on this issue. The model of the review that was undertaken by the ACT Human Rights Commission into Bimberi was the model we put forward during the last term. The report that resulted, the Review of the ACT youth justice system 2011, was a very thorough report which delivered a comprehensive understanding of the problems, and outlined a number of recommendations to start working on. The Greens support the government’s adoption of all the recommendations to drive change and deliver better outcomes in our youth justice system.
Turning to the specific clauses, clause 4 addresses managing the use of force. The amendment requires that a treating doctor or a nurse is notified if force is used in relation to a young detainee and implements recommendation 14.12 of the Human Rights Commission report. Previously, young people had an option under the use of force policy to see a doctor or nurse after a use of force event. However, this amendment seeks to remove the concern that young people may feel vulnerable in such a situation where force has been used, such that they do not wish to report for fear of repercussions.
The amendment seeks an exemption from reporting the use of force in circumstances where force is a “planned use of restraint” when the detainee is being escorted outside a detention place—for example, when handcuffs are used while a detainee is attending a health appointment. I can appreciate that reporting use of planned restraint to a treating doctor or nurse may seem excessive, as the use of force under these circumstances does not intrinsically imply that there is likely to be physical damage, and that there may be unnecessary over-reporting.
I am pleased to note that the capacity of a young person to report to a doctor or nurse under these circumstances still exists in the legislation. This is something that will need continued monitoring to ensure that the protection is effective and adequately responds to the needs of detainees.
It should also be noted that the Bimberi review does make some comment about the routine use of restraint for when remandees leave the detention facility for things such as health appointments. This is something that also needs to be monitored to ensure that we respond to contemporary best practice.
Clauses 6 and 7 omit “good order” as a reason to undertake a strip search or a body search. This was another recommendation by the Human Rights Commission to remove this risk to good order as a rationale for undertaking a strip search. The government has also taken the opportunity to apply the same test to body searches, and I welcome that initiative.
It appeared that there was a culture at Bimberi of conducting strip searches and other searches as a routine event under particular circumstances, such as when a room search was undertaken or when detainees asked for contact with family and friends. There were other recommendations around this issue in the commission’s report that relate to the practices by staff at Bimberi. I trust that those recommendations have been implemented as without a concurrent change in practice, changes to the legislation may be of limited effect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video