Corrections Amendment (Prisoner Remission) Bill 2018
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, many good issues have been raised and views shared. I will try to be fairly brief and touch on the points I would like to reiterate. I appreciate the bill we are discussing attempts to provide greater clarity as to how remissions are used in our prison service, and I welcome those elements of the bill. At this stage, I cannot support a bill that removes remissions entirely.
I would like to speak about that aspect of the bill rather than those other elements. The member for Murchison clarified that we could achieve some of those other intents through regulation. That was a point well made.
I am not able to support this bill. There are two quite simple reasons for that. First, we are debating a policy that appears to be more about ideology than policy. It seems to be more that we are looking at a slogan – ‘truth in sentencing’ – rather than a case being made about a clear problem we are trying to solve with this action of removing remissions. That is the core of any action we take with policy or legislation. We have identified a problem we wish to solve or an outcome we wish to achieve, and we find the best way toward that solution or the achievement of that outcome. There is not a clearly articulated problem here to solve or a clearly articulated outcome that is being sought.
Second, the other simple reason I cannot support this bill is that while missing those first things, it also provides the potential to contribute to the difficulties already being experienced in our prison system, particularly in regard to staffing and overcrowding. I will speak for a moment on this second point and then go back in more detail to the first.
In recent times we have heard yet again staff shortages at Risdon Prison Complex have resulted in the prisoners being placed in lockdown on a fairly regular basis. This is not the fault of our prison officers, who do an important job in a challenging environment. It is a systemic problem which the Government has known about for years; it is a challenging one to address, but the Government is yet to properly address it. Staff shortages negatively affect working conditions as prison officers have to work in increasingly – what I would imagine be to be – heated and tense environments. Lockdowns also adversely affect or impact upon prisoners through reduced access to educational programs, to other forms of offender programs, being denied visits from family and friends – all matters that can be ameliorative for them within the prison environment.
We heard in April how people who should have been released on bail were instead held in remand due to being on a waitlist to be accepted into appropriate housing. I find this a further disturbing aspect of our dire shortage of affordable housing in this state and another unfortunate aspect of an overcrowded prison. Staff shortages in the prison are also ultimately impacting on our state’s finances. Under questioning from the member for Windermere, we learned this Government spent $5.7 million on overtime for staff in the last financial year alone. It looks to me that even with all the overtime being done, the prison is regularly put into lockdown, potentially almost on a daily basis. It would seem the prison is being locked down because there are insufficient staff to fully and safely operate it. It is a disturbing situation.
Mr Dean – The lockdowns are also occurring through criminal activity and violence within the jail.
Ms WEBB – Thank you for your comment on that, member for Windermere. I will take questions at any stage.
Mr Dean – The question is: are they?
Ms WEBB – I am not in a position to answer that question. You would best ask the Government about that through our usual processes.
Mr Dean – Okay. You were talking about it.
Ms WEBB – I was talking about the points I was making. You asked me a question about something different. I will leave you to follow that up through other channels.
On top of the staff shortages we appear to be experiencing, we are also experiencing serious overcrowding in our prisons. In the 12 months to June this year, Tasmania’s prison population grew from 596 to 689. The issue of overcrowding was acknowledged as the TPS’s figures were challenged by the state’s Custodial Inspector, Richard Connock. This has resulted in cells designated for one or two people now being double- or triple-bunked. Furthermore, I have heard that due to the lack of space, prisoners who are supposed to be in minimum security have ended up at times in medium security.
I can imagine how both the staffing issues and the overcrowding issues can lead to negative outcomes for the prisoners and for prison staff substantially. More could be said about the state of our prisons, but I wanted to make those points briefly.
At the heart of it, what we are interested in is the safety and welfare of all Tasmanians. Politics aside, I am sure everyone in this Chamber, regardless of viewpoints around certain particular elements, can agree more needs to be done with our prison system to make sure it works well for everybody involved, including the broader community.
Given the current set of circumstances and difficulties being experienced in our state’s prisons, I do not believe removing remissions at this stage would contribute materially to addressing any of those challenges faced. What we have heard is the removal of remissions will likely add about 40 people to our prisons per year and an additional 40 prisoners will not do anything but exacerbate an already difficult situation.
Regarding the first point I raised, which is my key concern and the reason I cannot support this bill. I do not believe the case has been made that the removal of remissions is required or advisable. I wonder where this call is coming from. I wonder what problem we are seeking to solve in removing remissions. Who has raised the call to bring this measure to bear? Did it come through the prison system itself? Has it just been tagged onto the slogan ‘truth in sentencing’?
I do not believe a robust case has been made. I agree with the comments made by the member for Hobart. He asked, in relation to the claim that it is to meet community expectations, how those community expectations were measured and in what explicit way were those community expectations translated into a call to remove remissions. It is important for us to be very clear about the distinction between the opportunity to improve and make more transparent the process for granting remission as opposed to whether remission has value or presents a problem we must solve.
It is quite likely we could improve the implementation, transparency and accountability of the remissions process. Indeed, the community could quite rightly expect there would be regular efforts to best utilise and most accountably implement the remissions process. I would certainly argue for a review of that process with a view to ensuring the stringency and accountability of its application. We have clearly heard that the remissions system in place has a role to play in incentivising good behaviour in our prison system. At no stage during the briefings we received from people involved in that system did I hear a call being made for the removal of the remissions system and the process in place.
Remissions in the Tasmania Prison Service are seen as a good incentive for prisoners and a useful behaviour management tool. We have heard that through a number of sources, from people who interact with that system and people within the system itself. Therefore I think removing remissions has the potential to limit the tools available to our prison staff in managing behaviour. These are not just my fears; as we have heard, and it has been referred to already today, these are the fears of key voices in this field. Representatives of organisations that have connections with and work in the prison space have written to us expressing that view.
We have to be clear that remissions, as far as I understand them, are generally not there as a tool focused on or targeted towards what we might term ‘hardened criminals’. I do not believable they are used or are intended to be used for that cohort of prisoners, but more as a behaviour management tool for prisoners, particularly those who may be on shorter sentences. In that circumstance, they are in fact an effort to encourage people away from becoming more hardened by their experiences in gaol.
I respect that, in parliament, we are going to have different views on that and on many aspects of this topic; however, in presenting this policy I fear the Government has been guided more by ideology than on producing good evidence-based policy and legislation. I believe it is our responsibility to refer as much as possible to the evidence and to good practice when making policy. This results in informed decisions which have the least chance of negatively impacting the community. This would prompt us to ask: what does the evidence say on this?
We know that improving our prison system means improving or providing more effective rehabilitative and educational programs within the prison system, including offender programs. Doing so helps to improve the outcomes for everybody involved. It helps the working conditions for our prison staff because prisoner behaviour is improved with greater provision of those programs and services. It helps prisoners themselves by improving their overall wellbeing, with education being a particularly positive step for them to take during the time they spend in prison. It helps the economy as prisoners have higher levels of education upon leaving prison and also more capacity in terms of socialisation, more capacity in terms of relationships and less likelihood of having challenges with drug and alcohol issues. All those circumstances being improved during the time in prison means people are more likely on release to be successful in re-entering society, contributing and being positive members of our community. Ultimately, the improved rehabilitation programs are the things that best help improve the safety of our community. Studies into prisoner reoffending show a prisoner is less likely to be reincarcerated or increase the severity of their offending, if they have had experience with good, effective rehabilitation, education and offender programs during their time in prison.
I was pleased to hear during the briefings and information provided to us on this bill about the TasTAFE courses offered in Risdon Prison. It is a promising step towards improving prisoner welfare to provide education programs and towards improving outcomes for our wider community. In our briefings it was helpful to hear about the various other educationally focused courses or rehabilitative offender programs offered in the prison system, noting this is a range of worthwhile programs offered over a period of time. There remain some questions on the access to those courses and programs for all prisoners. We are given to understand such opportunities are allocated on the basis of targeting those prisoners who are most at risk or in need. Targeting is required because it would appear there is a lack of resources, compounded with other factors such as difficulty in recruiting appropriate staff to deliver courses and anticipating prisoner population and therefore, the level of need. All of those factors contribute to the fact it would seem, as reported to us, not all prisoners have access to courses and offender programs relevant to their offending.
The member for Windermere previously asked what more could they do, and that is a good question. We would all answer that question by saying there is always more we could do to make improvements and not dream of looking at our current situation as the best possible effort we could aspire to. We would all agree that what more could we do is to ensure there will always be further efforts towards improvements in what we provide that deliver greater experiences within the prison for staff, prisoners and ultimately our community when people are released.
I see no reason for us needing to have an either/or debate about remissions versus other behavioural management tools available within the prisons or a debate about remissions versus the range of other educational and offender programs available. The more tools available, the better it is to manage behaviour, incentivise good behaviour and equip people to be in a more positive circumstance when they leave prison, and to enhance the rehabilitative experience during incarceration for the better outcomes of our community in the long run.
Safety of the community is posited as a rationale for the removal of remissions. That case has not remotely been made. We could make a case for improving the remissions system by insuring accountability and reviewing it to make sure the system is operating as is intended so that it is accountable to its intentions. Delivering it according to the way it is designed would be a good effort towards improving safety in our community. I have not heard an argument made successfully that says the removal of remissions equals increased safety in the community.
I suspect and would anticipate that the impact of the removal of our remission system would be most strongly felt not in the community, but within the prison system itself by staff and by other prisoners.
Removing what is regarded – and we have heard it quite clearly from a range or sources – as a useful behaviour management tool could reasonably be expected to have repercussions internally in the prison system. Given that, I wonder what is proposed to replace the acknowledged positive impact that remissions have once they are intended to be removed. Is it greater funding and staffing levels generally? Is it greater staff funding and staffing levels for offending programs? Is it greater funding and staffing levels for educational programs? If commitments were made for all of the above, it still is not clear that this would ameliorate the loss of the tool of remissions. All those things should absolutely be committed to for our prison system broadly, and remissions should be retained as a valuable tool within the toolkit available in our system of prisons. I would like a clear understanding from the Government of what commitments it is making to ensure the working conditions and the wellbeing of our prison staff are not compromised further by the removal of remissions.
We have talked about the fact that other states, in various ways, have removed remissions from their systems. Other members have spoken about this in detail, so I am going to mention it only briefly. It is good practice to look at other jurisdictions when you are seeking to make good public policy. It is part of establishing an evidence base for the best way forward. However, without a starting point for our policy process of an identified problem to solve or an identified outcome to achieve, it becomes problematic to implement other good practice and public policymaking processes well.
While we might look to other jurisdictions and note they have removed remissions, without knowing why we want to do it and without knowing what we want to achieve by doing it, we do not know whether we can be informed by what they have done before us and take lessons one way or another from what other states have done. We certainly know that circumstances will be particular to each state; we know they will have, in various ways undoubtably, made different arrangements around the removal of remissions from their jurisdictions. It is not easy for us to apply a situation whereby we look to them and say, ‘They have done it over there and therefore we should do it over here.’ That is just not good enough for public policymaking in this state. Our community deserves much better than that sort of simplistic thinking.
We have had a fairly interesting discussion and some interesting interjections about the purpose of incarceration. I do not want to speak to that in any great detail while I stand here, other than to state very simply that there will be range of views on that. My view is that the purpose of incarceration is to punish and the deprival of liberty is a very serious punishment that we levy on people who have broken the law. The deprival of liberty is the ultimate punishment, short of capital punishment, that we can put on people in our community. I firmly believe the deprival of liberty is the punishment aspect when people are sentenced. What circumstances we surround them with while they are being deprived of their liberty is key to us achieving a good outcome in the risk of reoffending and ultimately in protecting our community. I am all for us using evidence-informed research and thinking about the best rehabilitative functions to put in place around people we deprive of liberty through incarceration. They are being punished, but we also need to make sure they will not need to be punished again. We do that by equipping them with prosocial skills, by assisting them with health issues like drug and alcohol addiction, by assisting them with offender programs that address the problematic behaviour that may have led to their offending, and by giving them skills and education to take with them when they leave prison to become constructive and positive members of our community. That is my view on the purpose of incarceration. The remission arrangement we have is, by all reports, a useful tool in behaviour management, has the potential rehabilitative function and assists people to leave prison in a more positive fashion if it is implemented stringently and accountably, and that is a very compelling reason to keep it.
I do not believe the case has been made for this measure of removing remissions to be taken. The problems we are trying to solve with this have never been identified. The outcome we are trying to achieve with this has also not been properly articulated beyond something very broad and amorphous regarding safety for the community. How will we know when this measure has ‘worked’? It is an important question to ask whenever we are implementing a policy response. It sits alongside the fact that we must have an identified problem we are trying to solve or outcome we are trying to achieve when we put policy in place. At some point, we will want to ask ourselves and want to know whether this measure has worked. I am very interested to hear, if we were to pass this bill and remove remissions from our system, how we would know that has worked as a positive and good public policy measure that delivers better outcomes to our community. For all those reasons, and because of the potentially negative impact I see it having, I cannot support this bill.
Mr Gaffney – You mentioned 40 people a year –
Ms WEBB – That might be clarified by the Government. I believe we heard that figure in one of our briefings.
Mr Gaffney – I thought prisoner cost was $300 a day. According to the Auditor-General, it was $378 in 2015-16. If we assume $378 and the 40 people and three months is 90 days – if they now take that away – that will be an extra $1.36 million a year of expense if we do not have remissions. That is only an estimate for the 40 at $378 a day.
Ms WEBB – That is only an economic cost. We also have to think about the environmental cost within the prison system in overcrowding, stress on staff and the way that having more prisoners incarcerated at any given time impacts on that environment.
Mr Gaffney – The member for Windermere gave a figure about the overspend for –
Ms WEBB – It was the spend on overtime in the last financial year and it was $5.7 million on overtime for staff in the last financial year alone. I am happy to be corrected but that is what I believe came from a question asked by the member for Windermere in this place.
