Page 2047 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Also, I understand why the government would use a rate like that. Yes, it shows up faster improvements but I guess ultimately what we need to see is for that to flow on into the rate of reimprisoned people who are in the AMC. Ideally, in the long-term—over a period of years—by the time we get our next census, that 74 per cent in the ABS stats will not be 74 per cent. I hope for that and I hope that the minister hopes for that too.
I agree with Minister Ramsay in his statements about building resilience and using whatever restorative processes are workable, reasonable and safe for people. On the matter of restorative justice, while he is listening I think it is good to add that I have my concerns about the use of that in certain sexual violence matters. I hope that he will be paying a lot of attention to that as it is rolled out in the ACT.
On the matter of building resilience, I was recently in the last week touring a prison facility in New South Wales, a women’s prison. I was really taken by the care and concern of the woman in charge of that facility for the women in that prison. I know we have a new person who has just started in the role in our prison to manage the whole business. I hope that the same level of care and concern for the outcomes of detainees is able to be displayed and effective. I think the women in that facility seemed to know that the governess who is in charge really gives a damn about them. I think that would make a difference.
She spoke about dealing with a small cohort of people in a much more concentrated way. Actually, I think we probably need to consider, if it has not been considered already, the possibility that some detainees may wish to live outside the ACT after they have served their time. If it is their desire to restart a new life, with new connections, that should perhaps be respected as well. I would love to hear more about whether our through-care program actually offers that at all at this point.
I accept that the minister is amending the motion. I do not take any great umbrage with it. I think the main thing is that we are going to get more information about the through-care program and that we can keep the eye of the public and the Assembly on what we are doing in this area. I think, frankly, most people would say that this is an area where we are failing. I agree with ambitious targets. Let us keep talking about it and see what we can do to improve it.
I will close on that note and thank all who have been involved in the debate. I know it is a late night; so we will move on to the next matter once we have had our vote. I thank all for their involvement.
Amendments agreed to.
Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly was put and negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video