Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The bill amends the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act by introducing nationally agreed changes to broaden the range of matters the minister may have with regard to when considering a request from a prisoner to be transferred to or from another state or territory. The bill also makes minor amendments to the principal act to remove all instances of gender specific language and to take account of amendments that have been made to the Interpretation Act. The Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act was introduced in 1983 as part of a national cooperative legislative scheme that permits prisoners to be transferred between participating jurisdictions. The act currently allows transfers for two purposes: to stand trial, or for welfare purposes. The current terms of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act allows the minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relatively narrow and unqualified manner. The bill increases the scope of the minister’s discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner’s safety and the safety of the community in general. Since its introduction in 1983, the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act has resulted in a number of prisoners being transferred from the Territory and, vice versa, transferred to the Territory. I take this opportunity to provide members of the House with an explanation of how the current legislation operates. In practice, once the request by a prisoner is made a report would be prepared by a Correctional Services welfare officer detailing the prisoner’s background and descendance as well as seeking confirmation of the prisoner’s welfare claims. A recommendation is made to the minister as to whether the request to the corresponding jurisdiction is made. This recommendation can be accompanied by supporting evidence such as letters from family of the prisoner’s claim. One of the most common reasons for requests for welfare transfer is to be closer to family and children or aged parents who are unable to visit the prisoner in the Northern Territory. Since July 1995, the Northern Territory has consented to nine prisoner applications to transfer to the Territory, and 52 Northern Territory prisoners have been transferred to other jurisdictions under the welfare provisions of the act. An unforeseen result of the operations current Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act was that prisoners sentenced in the Territory have been transferred to jurisdictions which operate under different guidelines when it comes to the application of parole provisions. Australia’s juridical systems and legislative framework represent a patchwork quilt - no two are the same - it is because of this I would like to take this opportunity to provide members with a brief picture of how the various jurisdictions operate their parole systems. South Australia: the parole board consists of six members appointed by the governor - Correctional Services Act 1982. These include a member of the judiciary, medical practitioners with extensive knowledge of psychiatry, qualified social worker, Indigenous person, a police officer, and one other member. In regard to lifers, the parole board needs to make a unanimous decision to recommend release, and the final decision is made by the governor on advice from the executive council. There is no requirement for a member to be a representative for a victim of crime, although written submissions from victims are accepted. Victoria: the parole board consists of community representatives and judicial members. The act indicates that a sitting must include a judicial member as the chair and two community representatives. The board is governed by the Corrections Act 1986. Decisions are made by majority rule, and lifers are assessed as per any other prisoner, according to their needs, to minimise the risk of reoffending. There is no requirement for a representative of victims of crime to be on the Parole Board; however, they will accept correspondence from victims. New South Wales: the parole board consists of judicial, community, probation, parole, and police members. In regard to lifers, the decision must be unanimous. There is no requirement for a representative of victims of crime, although victims’ submissions are accepted in writing, or sworn in at a public meeting to make a verbal statement. The Australian Capital Territory: the parole board consists of four members, a chair who has a legal background, vice-chair who is a solicitor, community advocate, and police officer. The ACT will only accept a transfer of a lifer if the parole is already granted in the home state or territory. Decisions do not have to be unanimous as the chair has the final say. There is no victim representative as part of the board; however, submissions are made by the victim liaison officer. Queensland: the parole board consists of a retired judicial member and five other members that must include departmental, medical, female, and Indigenous representation. Matters are decided by majority vote rather than unanimous. There is no victim representation on the board; however, any information the chief executive considers relevant to a parole application, such as information from victims or their representation, and restrictions on offenders in relation to crimes of violence, can be submitted. Western Australia: the parole board consists of a quorum of three - a judge, a community member, and a departmental representative. There may also be up to five other members. A re-socialisation program, which is approved by the governor of the prison, is commenced two years prior to a lifer being considered for parole. Transfer will be considered if the home state or territory requests it; however, is unlikely to be granted. Tasmania: the parole board consists of three members being present in a sitting. The board is governed by the Correction Act 1997. The chairs must have a legal qualification of at least seven years. There is a requirement to have a representative from victims of crime. Victims can make submissions through the secretary of the Parole Board and are sought in every case. You can see, when it comes to the operation of parole boards across Australia, no two operate the same. It is because this divergence in how parole boards operate, that the Henderson government has introduced this legislation. The legislation before us today closes of a loophole in the current legislation. It allows the minister to take into account other issues and matters when determining whether an application for an interstate transfer should be approved. Part II of the act covers transfers for welfare purposes. A transfer for welfare purposes may be made at the request of the prisoner concerned and depends on the minister forming the opinion that it is in the interests of the prisoner’s welfare that the prisoner be transferred. The bill amends part two of the act so that the minister’s discretion is not limited only to welfare of the prisoner when considering an application for interstate transfer. Under the National Cooperative Legislative Scheme, welfare transfers involve a three step process. First, the prisoner makes a request to the minister in his or her home state or territory for a transfer. If the minister is of the opinion that the prisoner should be transferred, the minister writes to the corresponding minister in the receiving jurisdiction, requesting that the minister accept the transfer. The only relevant consideration under the current act is the welfare of the prisoner. Second, under the corresponding legislation, the receiving minister has the discretion to approve the transfer; and, thirdly, if the minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents to the transfer, the minister making the original request may make an order for transfer. When the prisoner is a federal offender, or a joint state or territory and federal offender, the Commonwealth Attorney-General must also consent to the transfer. I now turn to the detail of the bill. The heading of Part II is changed from ‘Transfer for Prisoners Welfare’ to ‘Transfer at Request of Prisoner’. This emphasises the fact that the impetus for a transfer comes from the prisoners themselves, and better reflects the prisoner’s own path in the transfer procedures. Proposed section 9A is inserted to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that the minister may consider when a prisoner makes a request to be transferred to or from another state or territory. The bill provides that the minister may have regard to the following when considering such a request: the welfare of the prisoner; the administration of Justice in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; the security and good order of any prison in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; the safe custody of a prisoner; the protection of the community in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; and, any other matter the minister considers relevant. The bill also provides for an amendment to section 21 of the act, which is in Part IV. The amendment mirrors proposed section 9A. Part IV of the act contains a requirement that a minister must, in respect of prisoners who have been transferred to the Northern Territory for trial purposes, transfer those prisoners back to their home jurisdiction if no sentence is imposed in the Northern Territory or Northern Territory sentence is shorter than the other jurisdiction’s sentence. One of the exceptions to this requirement, which is already contained in section 21, is where the minister receives a request from a prisoner for transfer for welfare purposes. It follows that, in these situations, the minister should have regard to the same broader range of factors as would apply where there is a general request for transfer from welfare purposes under Part II. The current terms of the act allow the minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relative narrow and unclarified manner. The bill increases the scope of the minister’s discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner’s safety and the safety of the community in general. For example, there has been recent media interest in the matter of Jonathan Bakewell. Bakewell was transferred to South Australia under the act, the only relevant consideration for the minister in approving his transfer being the welfare of Bakewell. The High Court has recently held that the Northern Territory Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to increase Bakewell’s non-parole period because he is no longer a Northern Territory prisoner but a South Australian one. The proposed amendments mean that, in the future, there could be a basis for refusing such an application. I note all other participating jurisdictions have now amended their legislation in accordance with changes agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and the Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference. This bill ensures that our minister will have the same discretion in considering prisoners’ applications for interstate transfer as the corresponding ministers in all the other participating jurisdictions. I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |