“Could I suggest that in future prior to publishing this type of material, you consult with the Victims of Crime Commissioner?’ There we have it, from the minister’s mouth; those who dare to speak out about the failure to implement the Corrections law will be labelled as victim oppressors, writes HUGH SELBY.
Have you stayed at the Hyatt Canberra? If so, you may recall the attention of their staff, the elegant fit out of the room, the right hardness of the mattress and the pillows, the smell of the bathroom items, the views down to the lake, the quality of the food, and the overall ambience of good taste.
For the same price, or more, any one of us, after behaving too badly, can be accommodated for one day at our jail, the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC).
There we will get tasteless clothing, non-memorable food, a bed that may be too short, dangerous cleaning powder to wash that clothing, our mail lost, our funds scammed, and be put under the control of watchful guards who have got the message to treat us as lost causes, incapable of ever being contributors to the community outside the walls.
That said, we life failures can be sold drugs, phones, and if we have to use the prison phones, then be charged at the exorbitant rates that were once the preserve of hotels.
One day, one price, but one gives pleasure and energy, the other gives pain and despair.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Our guiding angels of democracy, Andrew and Marisa (PATERSON@act.gov.au) could take a pro-rehabilitation, pro-reintegration approach to Corrections.
The Corrections Management Act, section 13, makes that explicit: they can direct and the management must comply. That approach would serve us all because there would be less re-offending and cost savings.
Public funds now being spent on secure warehousing of aimless offenders could be redirected to crime-prevention initiatives, to better education, and public health. (Note for Andrew: could also be put towards the interest bill for your shiny red toys.)
But as it is, Andrew and Marisa see no reason to share with us the reasons for their blinkered approach to penology. Getting up to date, if they were so minded, requires little effort. They don’t have to change the law. It’s there, has been since 2007.
The preamble to the act requires efforts toward rehabilitation, reintegration, and “decent, humane and just treatment”. These are stated again, as objectives of the act (sections 7 and 9).
Much further down in the act, section 78 requires management to have a case plan for each inmate. That plan must include (among other requirements): “Outline how the detainee is to be prepared for lawful release and reintegration into society at the earliest possible time.”
Clearly set out, easy to understand, and very much an example of, “where there’s a will there’s a way”.
With no will, there’s no way
All Andrew and Marisa need to do is turf out the present management and bring in a new team capable of implementing the law by leadership, and giving staff the training and chance to help many sentenced prisoners become corrected individuals who have the means and the drive to be useful, valued members of our Australian society.
Meanwhile, our Corrections ignore the law, criminology and common decency when it comes to dealing with those in the AMC. More evidence please? Happy to oblige.
Last week we drew your and Marisa’s attention to the program that is misnamed a “transitional release program” (TRP). We set out barriers to that program being useful. You can re-read it here.
Let us now add the perspective of someone who wanted to help a prisoner by engaging them through the TRP.
Her experience making the application – ultimately futile – was inordinate delays in replies to correspondence, a strong vibe at a meeting that letting the prisoner participate in the TRP was wrong, that her willingness to be involved as a work supervisor was also wrong, and that the process was nothing more than “going through the motions”.
Her sense of “we will stop this whatever it takes” was reinforced by the failure of TRP staff visiting her to ever suggest solutions to “the problems” they found, along with their failure to bother to respond when she sent them solutions to those problems.
A proactive approach to the TRP would have its staff working with potential sites to solve problems.
It got worse because she was told that a staffer wanted to talk to her. There was no follow up. The chat never happened. Instead she was advised that the application was denied – without reasons being given – and that there would be no further contact.
She made repeated requests, all ignored, for the policy that governed the TRP.
There is one. It’s a notifiable instrument, Corrections Management (Transitional Release) Policy, NI2023-81. Apparently finding it, or providing it to people who want to help prisoners, is just too hard for the dedicated TRP staff and their superiors.
There are many notifiable instruments for Corrections, but I could not find one addressing the topic of rehabilitation. That omission is telling.
Even more telling is the email to me from Marisa’s office responding to the previous article on barriers to the TRP.
I pity the public servant who had to prepare it. But at the heart of the letter, and reflecting an underlying intent to avoid meaningful rehabilitation and reintegration is the following: “I urge you to carefully consider the appropriateness of publishing this kind of material, which has the potential to deeply impact victims of crime in the ACT generally, and victims of this detainee’s crimes in particular.
“Could I suggest that in future prior to publishing this type of material, you consult with the Victims of Crime Commissioner?”
There we have it. Those who dare to speak out about the failure to implement the Corrections law will be labelled as victim oppressors. I, and you, have been warned.
Methinks this is now a game of ‘shoot the messenger’.
Leave a Reply