Page 197 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 December 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The AMC is a unique jail in the Australian corrections landscape and that perhaps is why we have one of the most reviewed jails in the country. Since its opening in 2009 there have been numerous reviews and audits, both internal and external, covering everything from clothing and detainee menus to general operations, treatment of women detainees and, more recently, rehabilitation.
As noted by Mrs Jones, some examples of recent reviews include rehabilitation of male detainees at the AMC, an Assembly inquiry into sentencing, a human rights audit on the conditions of detention of women at the AMC, the Burnet report into drug policies and services at the AMC, an independent review of operations at the AMC and a review of governance including drug testing at the AMC. These reports alone delivered 328 recommendations and many more findings or conclusions. Further, ACT Corrective Services and the Justice and Community Safety Directorate are as we speak considering the recommendations of three other reports: the Moss review, the standing committee’s inquiry into the Auditor-General’s report and, finally, a deep and broad review of security operations as a result of the recent escape from custody of two detainees.
It is evident, as the Auditor-General herself has noted, that we have one of the most closely watched correctional facilities in the nation. The external oversight of ACT Corrective Services is governed by multiple agencies with legislative power to consider matters that arise at the AMC. The current agencies and statutory positions that provide oversight and that can and do proactively investigate issues are the ACT Human Rights Commission, the ACT Health Services Commissioner, the Discrimination Commissioner and the ACT Public Advocate, as well as the ACT Ombudsman and the Auditor-General.
ACT Corrective Services holds regular oversight agencies meetings where many diverse matters are discussed and complaints may be resolved without further escalation. All of those oversight agencies that I just mentioned are actually invited to that one meeting so that they can talk to each other, they can talk to Corrective Services. I think that forum provides a high degree of transparency to those oversight agencies and potentially avoids some unnecessary duplication so that they can focus their resources into the issues that need to be explored.
Additionally, official visitors are appointed by the minister for justice under the Official Visitor Act. There are two official visitors, including an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander official visitor appointed for the purpose of the Corrections Management Act 2007 as well as a mental health official visitor for the purposes of the Mental Health Act 2015, which covers the AMC as a defined visitable place.
Beyond these structural oversight agencies, the Corrections Management Act allows a judge, a magistrate or a member of the Legislative Assembly to enter and inspect the AMC at any reasonable time. Mrs Jones did make a point about not having access. I am happy to facilitate any briefings that Mrs Jones wants from my agency. I am happy to facilitate a visit to the AMC for Mrs Jones and any of her colleagues within reason at a time requested. There are always some provisos around that. The jail is not an easy place to come and go to but I am more than happy to facilitate that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video