Page 269 - Week 01 - Thursday, 15 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
OPCAT requires that the UN subcommittee have the power to speak with whomever they choose in private as well as access all relevant documents.
This bill provides a clear legal framework for the ACT to meet this obligation. Places of deprivation of liberty in the ACT include the Alexander Maconochie Centre, juvenile detention, secure psychiatric units, court cells and prison transport. Under this bill responsible ministers will be empowered to make arrangements to accommodate particular subcommittee visits to places of detention within their ministerial portfolio.
The OPCAT recognises that detainees and others may be reluctant to talk to oversight bodies. The OPCAT notes the importance of protecting persons in these circumstances. This is reflected in the bill, which provides protection for persons giving information to the UN subcommittee and creates an offence for persons intentionally taking detrimental action against someone for giving information to the UN subcommittee.
This is not the first time a bill of this kind has been introduced in the Assembly; the ACT previously introduced a national model legislation in March 2013 to support visits of the UN subcommittee to ACT places of detention. Because ratification was not progressed at that time, the legislation was not debated and the bill lapsed at the end of the last Assembly. This bill largely mirrors that previous bill but with some minor but important changes to better preserve detainees’ right to privacy.
Should the UN subcommittee elect to visit places of detention in the ACT as part of a visit to Australia, I am advised that it will not involve significant costs for the territory. The subcommittee’s accommodation, insurance and transport costs are borne by the United Nations, and the commonwealth has agreed to coordinate and accompany visits. There may be some small costs in arranging access to facilities and relevant information. However this cost is likely to be minimal given that, based on current practices, the UN subcommittee may visit Australia for a visit of up to two weeks every five to 10 years, and over this time it would visit a number of jurisdictions and not just the territory. Given the international significance of Australia ratifying the OPCAT I think it would be reasonable to expect a subcommittee visit fairly soon after ratification, perhaps in the next 12 months.
After a visit to Australia the UN subcommittee would provide a confidential report with recommendations and observations to the commonwealth government and the coordinating NPM, if one has been established. It is up to the state party as to whether this report is made public. The usual practice is for state parties to prepare responses to the UN subcommittee’s report. So if the subcommittee visited the ACT responding to the UN subcommittee’s recommendations may involve some work by ACT public service officials. I am confident these costs will not be a significant impost on government. They are, in fact, very necessary to facilitate the oversight provided by the protocol.
I take this opportunity to reiterate the government’s support for ratification of this important treaty. The ACT has been a leading jurisdiction in preparing to implement OPCAT obligations. The approach of the recently established ACT Inspector of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video