Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, thank you. Hello kids. It is good to have you here today. I think most Tasmanians recognise the need to close Ashley Youth Detention Centre. Most Tasmanians are aware of the evidence, the findings and the recommendations of the commission of inquiry. What we are being asked to do here today is to rush the declaration of a new youth detention facility at Pontville, removing public appeal rights and removing the oversight of the Public Works Committee.
This government, on its record, requires oversight. We are talking about a project here which will be in the order of, $150 million. We cannot be exactly sure what it will cost because it is still in the design development phase and we certainly have not seen a development application, the development application that presumably would be submitted to the Southern Midlands Council, which will have its discretionary capacity removed and be required by this legislation to permit the project, albeit potentially with conditions.
The Greens did not support this bill in the other place and we will not support it up here and that is for a range of reasons which I will outline, but which have also been articulated by other members. I want to take colleagues back to 2016, when the government commissioned the Noetic report, which was looking at alternatives in youth justice and detention and, ironically, member for Launceston, the Noetic report recommended the construction of two youth justice facilities, one in the north and one in the south, and recommended that an early intervention and therapeutic approach be applied to these facilities.
Ms Armitage – Sounds good.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes. So, in 2016, nine years ago, government, that is, the Liberals in government, were provided with a thoroughly researched report which recommended Ashley close and it recommended it close because it found, essentially, that the facility is unsuitable and not scalable for its needs and because of where it is and how it is built, it is very difficult to provide the necessary throughcare for young people who find their way into youth detention.
The Noetic report also strongly recommended that government invest in bail options, other early intervention and therapeutic supports, that government be mindful of the housing needs of young people who are exiting that facility because, too often, these kids have nowhere to go and at times that has been part of the reason that they have remained being detained in the Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
After the release of the Noetic report and not long after I became leader of the Greens, we developed a policy paper called Alternatives to Ashley, and it applied the principles of the Noetic report based on what was, at the time, known as the Missouri Model. The Missouri model recognised that if you want to make the community safer and deliver better outcomes for children and young people who find their way into the criminal justice system, you need to create an environment that is more homelike, that does not alienate and brutalise children and young people in detention and we released that policy initiative in 2016, setting out the case for two smaller therapeutic facilities in the north and south of the state. I am taking members through this timeline because I think it is important honourable members understand how long government has been dithering on this.
Ms Webb – Under the same minister
Ms O’CONNOR – All under the same minister, who I acknowledge the presence of in the Chamber today. In Budget Estimates of 27 June 2018 the minister and I had an exchange across the table because at that point advocates for children and young people, the Commissioner for Children and Young people, whistleblowers, former detainees had all been crying out for the closure of Ashley Youth Detention Centre, as had the Greens. We asked the minister if a decision had been made to keep Ashley open based on the politics of retaining jobs in and around Deloraine, because it was pretty obvious to the Greens that that was the case. From the Hansard at the time, I asked:
Given that at Ashley Youth Detention Centre, the ratio of staff to detainees is on average, I would say about 10:1, can you, minister, confirm that the decision to keep Ashley open was actually based on political imperatives and the desire to shore up a seat in then, and that the therapeutic approach to youth detention has been ditched in effect by your government in favour of the jobs at Ashley, given that the jobs at Ashley outnumber the detainees by about 10:1.
Well, regrettably, I am not sure, given that the population of Ashley Youth Detention Centre keeps increasing, what the ratio of staff is at this day. The minister pointed out that at that point $300,000 had been invested in the therapeutic approach. An absolute pittance. He said:
In line with community expectations, the government’s committed to providing a stronger and more therapeutic rehabilitation justice system.
Remembering that this is seven years ago, I reminded the minister of the advice of the Children’s Commissioner that Ashley needs to be closed and the minister said:
While the detention of young people is the last resort, it is an unfortunate reality that some young people do need to be detained in a youth justice facility if they commit serious offences and receive a custodial sentence.
Well obviously, but he goes on to say:
The Tasmanian Government has a responsibility to ensure the best opportunities and outcomes for young people who enter our youth justice system. That’s why we have committed to keeping the Ashley Youth Detention Centre open on its current site.
And he goes on to say, and this has been referred to by other members:
We’ve invested $7.3 million into a major redesign and upgrade of the facility which will make it fit for purpose and continue to improve the model of care as part of a modern, integrated, statewide therapeutic youth justice model.
Seven years ago, two years after Noetic handed down its report, we had government digging in, keeping Ashley open, and I might say, the Labor Opposition held the same position at the time, and both the Liberal and Labor parties went to the 2021 state election holding to that policy of keeping Ashley open. That position became utterly untenable, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the whistleblowers who have come forward, to thank Alysha for her courage and acknowledge what she went through in shining that light into the house horrors that is Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
I note other members who have said, why can we not just keep Ashley open and make that the northern facility? Well, the Noetic report did deal with that in part.
Some places are cursed; some places have such a history and a darkness attached to them that they are unresolvable. I take members to the commission of inquiry report of August 2023, remembering that there were two catalytic and devastating sets of circumstances that effectively led to the commission of inquiry. One was at the Launceston General Hospital: that tragic, and I would argue, unforgivable failure to protect children in that hospital. The second was what we were learning about what was happening to children and young people inside the Ashley Youth Detention Centre. The commission of inquiry says about Ashley:
An assessment of the centre commissioned by the Tasmanian Government in 2016 concluded that the location of Ashley Youth Detention Centre ‘makes it difficult to deliver a through-care approach which builds on prosocial relationships with the young person’s family, community and service providers.’
This paragraph goes to the history and why some of us believe the place is cursed:
Ashley Youth Detention Centre operates on the site of the previous institution known as the Ashley Home for Boys. Ashley Home for Boys transitioned to a secure youth detention centre for males and females aged between 10 and 18 years on 28 June 2000. Allegations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse made by former residents of Ashley Home for Boys have been the subject of a Tasmanian Ombudsman review, resulting in compensation and a state government apology in 2005 to former wards of the state abused in care.
Some staff from Ashley Home for Boys continued to work at Ashley detention centre once it opened, and remained working there for many years. Also, several current staff [and that is current as at August 2023] have been working in Ashley Youth Detention Centre since the early 2000s. We discussed concerns about the culture and operations of Ashley Youth Detention Centre over the past two decades in Section 6 and throughout Volume 5.
Mr Morris, the former Commissioner for Children and Young People, observed that:
Children and young people detained at Ashley Youth Detention Centre often have serious psychological or emotional damage and issues; brain injury due to childhood trauma or conditions such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder; family violence; chronic neglect; failed attachment; and developmental delay.
Although the Tasmanian Youth Custodial Information System does not capture information about young people with disabilities in detention, broader data suggests that adults and young people with mental and cognitive disabilities are overrepresented in detention centres. We heard that ‘significant mental health problems’ and previously unknown or unaddressed disability-related need are often not identified until children are in detention.
The Commission of Inquiry report goes on:
There are significant behaviour and learning challenges in the cohort of young people at Ashley Youth Detention Centre. The Ashley School Principal, Samuel Baker, told us that the literacy and numeracy skills of students at the school are in general ‘many years behind their peers in the community’, predominantly due to socio-economic disadvantage and having missed significant amounts of schooling. Data provided by the former Department of Communities indicates that 43 per cent of all young people in detention in Tasmania in 2020-2021 had been in out-of-home care.
The commission of inquiry heard what we know: that a high number of children cycle in and out of Ashley Youth Detention Centre in a relatively short period. More than 50 per cent of children aged between 10 and 16 years returned to the centre within 12 months of their release. For some kids, it was observed that Ashley felt a safer place to them than their own home and community environments. The recommendation of the commission of inquiry in 2023 was that Ashley Youth Detention Centre be closed as soon as possible.
Before that, in September 2021, six months after the state election that was called a year early when Peter Gutwein was premier, the Greens continued to relentlessly question government about what was happening to children and young people inside Ashley Youth Detention Centre. He stunned and delighted certainly the Greens, when he made a commitment that Ashley Youth Detention Centre would be closed by September 2024: within two years. I acknowledge that the former premier could get very enthusiastic about big projects, and he did not mind making a big promise, promoting a big idea. In fact, the first premier to promote the stadium as a big idea, of course, was Peter Gutwein.
I understand that a two-year timeframe for the closure is pretty tight because there are a whole lot of processes, obviously, the government would need to go through in order to have developed its model of care: selected a site or sites; consulted with the community; prepared, for example, a development application to go through normal council processes; or potentially even declare it a project of regional significance. The government did not meet that deadline of September 2024, and it was very hard to understand what was happening during that period, but three-and-a half years later, we are being told this bill is urgent.
We have not had an adequate explanation for the nine years of heel dragging on the part of government, when they knew Ashley Youth Detention Centre was not fit for purpose and it was harming children and young people. They had independent verification of that: they had their own Commissioner for Children and Young People calling on them to close Ashley – this began nine years ago – and yet we are being asked today, in fact, that is what is happening, we have interrupted debate on the Budget to rush through this legislation.
It feels like there was all this dithering, inertia and then this bill gets cobbled together because the dithering was such that it has delayed the process, and the minister is tired of being asked when Ashley will close and the new youth detention facility will be open. It is not a good enough reason for honourable members to deal with this bill in haste. We are not here to mitigate the effect of the minister and the department’s sluggishness.
The basics of the bill before us today provide a framework to declare a project the project. It needs to make the following conditions in order to be eligible to be declared a project for the purposes of the act: it must be a youth justice facility proposed by the state; it must have a floor area not exceeding 6875 square metres, which can be changed by the minister, although it is a disallowable instrument; it must not have an onsite wastewater management system involving the treatment of more than 100 kilolitres, which also can be changed through disallowable instrument by the minister. It must be set back from boundaries by at least 20 metres, also can be emitted or varied by disallowable instruments. At least 80 per cent of the site does not meet an average height of 15 metres. Whatever this means in building terms, I am not sure what relevance and average height in building terms means. Does that mean that some things can be a metre tall and some things can be 50 metres tall? I do not know. Maths is not my strong point.
The work is to commence on the site by 1 December of this year and the site is not intended to be used for any commercial purposes operated by the state. The bill provides that the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 applies to an object or relic and that works are to be undertaken in a way that minimises impacts on Aboriginal heritage. That provision relates to an object or relic that was unexpected to be found or not expected to be found. It is unclear to what extent, if any, of the Aboriginal Heritage Act requirements would be obstructed by the act and we remain uncertain about the need for this provision.
The bill also allows for the minister to direct the recorder of titles to create, amend, rearrange or extinguish a portfolio in respect of land that relates to the project. The bill provides that the declared project is taken to be a discretionary use and a planning authority assessing a declared project must approve the development with or without conditions. We heard in the briefing the other day from the Southern Midlands Council. This bill provides that nobody can appeal this project, that appeal rights are extinguished. I thought the member for Elwick yesterday in really clear terms highlighted the concerns with this provision and the potential unknown or unintended consequences. The bill also waives several protection works requirements under the Building Act 2016 including notification of adjoining landowners, the rights of adjoining landowners from commenting on, disagreeing to, or requesting additional information on protection works.
As I said before we are being rushed. This is overreach on the part of government. The issue we have here is and it is the same with the proposed Macquarie Point Stadium, is that as proponent, this government is in the habit of writing its own rules, of making itself proponent, regulator, planning authority. That is certainly what the stadium enabling bill does, but the government is the proponent of this proposed youth detention facility at Pontville and it does not want to have to deal with people exercising their democratic right to appeal through TASCAT. As we know, the government has no capacity to extinguish judicial review rights, which are protected in the constitution, but I will bet you if they were not protected in the constitution they would have had a crack at it.
We are not going to be supporting this legislation, although we have been in political terms, the most consistent and fierce advocate in the House of Assembly for those children and young people going back a decade. We have helped push government into announcing that Ashley Youth Detention centre would close. We have advocated for those kids in there for the longest time and it feels a bit like this bill is quite manipulative, isn’t it, given what we know about what happens to kids in Ashley Youth Detention Centre, given how clear the need is to end the suffering of that place. To be told that you have to pass this bill, and in so doing, remove your own capacity through the Public Works Committee to oversight and deny your own constituents their right to appeal.
It is interesting, isn’t? Nine years government has had on this, dragging their heels election after election, promises, two years then maybe by 2028 under this bill. The inertia here, it is telling, when you compare it with the Macquarie Point Stadium plan.
The machinery of government when it points towards something that government wants to deliver, can work surprisingly fast and efficiently.
Since the Premier announced there would be an enabling bill for the stadium and had it whipped up in three weeks. We have had it put out for consultation and dumped on the table anyway, during the consultation period. The government has been able to write up a draft permit, which in legal terms is meaningless, for the stadium enabling bill.
All that machinery of government pointed towards a stadium and yet, this issue and those kids at Ashley Youth Detention Centre, have been made to wait. They have been de prioritised. It is at the point for government where it has clearly become untenable because this minister and this government were put on notice by the commission of inquiry.
We can achieve the construction and development of a therapeutic youth justice facility at Pontville without robbing parliament of its responsibility to oversight. Or, robbing everyday Tasmanians of their right to take issue with and appeal planning decisions.
It is telling, I will simply say this one final time, that when the government is proponent, it does not want to deal with people exercising their democratic rights. Interesting.
We all know the population at Ashley Youth Detention Centre has been steadily increasing in recent years. We know that. That is in part, undeniably as a result of the government’s tough on crime policies and now we have a feral and out of control minister for police who is threatening children and young people with adult crime, adult time laws.
We have an excellent Youth Justice blueprint. It is excellent and is best practise. We have the commission of inquiry recommendations, which are very clear about the need for therapeutic response. Then, we have this other arm of government, rounding up kids, putting them in Ashley on remand, putting them in adult detention facilities. I refer members to the paper that was tabled today, by the Custodial Inspector. I have not had an opportunity to read it all yet.
Ms Forrest – It is shocking. He has put a media release out about it.
Ms O’CONNOR – Has he? Of course, it is shocking. It would align with the evidence we have heard come before parliamentary committees that it is becoming a fairly standard practice for children young as 10 to be sent into adult remand facilities. I hope the government and the Leader of Government Business can address that question that is been raised by members in a number of forums, about the collision between these two policy objectives, keeping our community safer by having a therapeutic approach to youth justice and brutalising children and young people with a ‘tough on crime’ approach that has a criminogenic effect on children and young people.
I will close with a little bit from today’s Custodial Inspector’s report. He says:
Given the current debate in the community about youth crime, including the prospect of adult time for adult crime, it’s timely to reflect on the realities of adult prison and whether as a community, we actually want children in such an environment. This report demonstrates we should not. Too often in our inspection work we’ve spoken to children in AYDC only to later speak with them in prison.
The trajectory is rarely positive for the child or the community more broadly. Youth crime can lead to adult crime unless therapeutic strategies are effectively implemented. Keeping children out of prison watch houses is an important element of a therapeutic approach to youth justice. Yet these spaces are the entry point for almost every child that’s taken into custody and not eligible for police bail or unconditionally released. This needs to change.
He goes on:
Implementing adult time for adult crime, apart from being inconsistent with the commitment to a therapeutic approach, would also mean that children would be more likely to end up in prison to serve sentences, but to an extent they’re already there. Clear strategies are required to address community concerns about youth crime, along with information about why those strategies work in the long term. This report strongly suggests the Tasmanian government should maintain the course of seeking to implement a therapeutic approach to youth justice for all children.
I certainly hope that the more thoughtful and progressive people in in government and in within that frame I would include the minister, prevail on this issue. We cannot let government reverse all the work of the commission of inquiry or the courage of the whistleblowers and the victim/survivors who have come forward and take us backwards into the dark ages of our colonial penal past. We have to stay the course on a therapeutic approach. We do need a new therapeutic youth justice facility, but this bill is not the way to achieve because it demands of us to rob oversight, to take away oversight and rob people of their appeal rights and it is significantly on that basis that the Greens cannot and will not support this bill.
