Page 4358 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 27 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (6.26): I will close the debate as well. I am glad that the government are supporting their own amendments. Turning to a couple of issues raised by the Chief Minister and Mr Rattenbury, the point is that there is significant new information that has come to light on this issue. We have now seen more of the advice that was provided to the government in the period leading up to the design—quite clearly, why the government announced that it would be 374 beds, and it adds much greater weight to the fact that we were deceived. When we were told that there would be sufficient capacity, the government knew that that would not be the case.
The other significant thing is that the Official Visitor has provided some very disturbing evidence about what the overcrowding means. I think it is important that we as the opposition maintain pressure on this issue, so that the government does respond, and responds in a timely manner. It is quite clear, based on the Official Visitor’s advice, that, in essence, it is a powder keg out there and if this government does not act quickly the consequences could be quite catastrophic.
We will not be supporting the amendment but I do note that paragraph (2) commends the exceptional professionalism and commitment of the ACT Corrective Services in responding to these increased pressures, and I would support that element of it. I think it is a very difficult job that the staff have. They have been put in an almost impossible position in trying to manage this situation. I certainly do commend them. So although we will not be supporting the amendment, that should not be seen as a sign of anything but unanimous support for the staff. It is only a shame that this government did not show the same support for Doug Buchanan when he questioned the government’s NSP.
Looking back at the history, when we said in 2004 that we would rather put the money into health than the prison, that, in retrospect, appears quite wise. We would not have allowed the Belconnen Remand Centre to remain. It is clear that that did need upgrading. But as Jon Stanhope said in 2004, in the design of the jail it would be a remand centre, there would be a space for sentenced prisoners and there would be transitional accommodation. He adhered to the very important principle when he was talking then, and as the Official Visitor has said, that it is a no-no. You do not put sentenced prisoners with remandees.
I would like to put on the record that I am extremely disturbed by that ongoing situation where young remandees find themselves in a position where they are mixing with hardened sentenced prisoners. I do not understand how this government, who purport to be the champions of human rights, have allowed that situation to unfold. In the words of the Official Visitor, it is a no-no; you do not do it. But this government continue to do it and say that this is somehow in accordance with their human rights philosophy.
It is not true that no-one anticipated the numbers in the jail. The government anticipated them, and that is why the government said they would build a jail for 374. The reason that they then wound back was because they ran out of money. So let us not pretend that this was unanticipated and that 300 was an oversight. It was based on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video