Young Offenders and Prison Legislation Amendment Bill 2024
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 26 November 2024]
p6387b-6405a
Hon Peter Collier; Hon Dr Brad Pettitt; Hon Dr Brian Walker; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Tjorn Sibma
HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [7.34 pm]: Acting President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Dr Sally Talbot): Sorry; Hon Dr Steve Thomas has the call.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Thank you, Acting President. That is the most fun I have had today!
The ACTING PRESIDENT: I am very glad to be of service, honourable member.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I am glad to see we can still laugh
I rise to speak on the Young Offenders and Prisons Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I thought for a minute that with the contribution by Hon Dr Brian Walker we had somehow suddenly switched from the left wing and the socialists to the right wing. It turns out, though, that it was an accismus; one of those little things that come along that are based on an ironic rhetorical device. The member was leading us astray; we thought we might get a right-wing contribution from him here today. Obviously, that is back to me. I love a conversation when the left and the right battle it out.
Hon Dan Caddy: It’s better than the right on the right!
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I like to debate. I am among the vestige of the right, which is not the right of the Labor Party, of course, but the vestige of conservatism, shall we say. It is perhaps not quite Trumpism but a vestige of conservatism. I find that really useful.
It was an interesting contribution from Hon Dr Brian Walker. He started with a little bit of conservatism, or at least the facade of conservativism, before he slipped back to the left-wing socialist agenda. I noted that at one point he said, “It’s all our fault.” By definition, the difference between conservatism and left-wing socialism is individual responsibility versus it is everybody’s fault. I think that applies to the community justice process really well. Call me conservative or call me right wing, but one of the issues I want to focus on is that obedience to the law is not optional based on how good a person is feeling about themselves or something people do when they do not feel disempowered or displaced. Obedience to the law is the first step. If we do not have that first step in place, I am not sure why we bother. We sit here and debate laws, but then the left-wing voice comes along and says, “Yes, but if you don’t feel empowered this week, the laws don’t apply to you.” I think that is part of the problem. I will go into a bit more detail on that.
Hon Dr Brian Walker’s position stood out because, to some degree, he outed himself as left wing. Of course, he also said that when he worked in the youth custodial system he was treated with a lot more respect because he treated young people with respect. That might well be true, but I do not imagine that Hon Dr Brian Walker had to control young people who were potentially highly dangerous and highly violent. He could always step back. If it was likely that he was going to be attacked in the office, it would not be Hon Dr Brian Walker, as a GP, who would be defending himself; there would be prison staff taking the brunt of that bit of violence.
Of course, Hon Dr Brian Walker also pointed out the old-fashioned truisms such as an ounce of prevention et cetera. We can all reasonably comfortably trot out barnyard analogies. In these circumstances, I am always reminded of that great font of wisdom on television that I saw very little of but my wife quite liked—that is, Supernanny. The supernanny dealt with disobedient young children. It has been suggested in this debate so far that if we just give these young people everything they want when they want it, they will probably behave. Therefore, the solution to the problem is to just give everybody what they want. I will apply the supernanny process to this issue, because, you know what, kids had to sit on the naughty chair, naughty step or naughty spot and there was punishment for their behaviour.
That is what is missing when the left and the socialists debate youth detention—the fact that there has to be consequences for actions and behaviour. Maybe that makes me a conservative; maybe that is a Trumpism coming out. I do not think it works. I do not think that many parents—there are a lot of parents in the room. Many of us have kids who are grown up and we are beyond that. I do not think that too many people in this room, as parents, would say, “zero consequences for bad behaviour,” because I do not think that works. I do not think it has ever worked. We then get what I like to think of as “spoilt child syndrome”. Do not worry, I have seen plenty of that in politics over my years as well—particularly “youngest child syndrome”. Are there any youngest children in the room? Maybe we should be tossing that example around.
Hon Dan Caddy: Doubt it. Only the eldest would make it.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: No, the middle child tends to be the —
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I am the youngest.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The minister is the youngest, is she? Okay. The spoilt brat is the youngest, perhaps, and the spoilt, entitled eldest child—it is the middle child who has to do all the work and basically maintain the balance.
Hon Lorna Harper: He is a middle child!
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Yes. The middle child has to do all the work. I cannot imagine that there is a single parent in this room who did not apply consequences for bad behaviour. I do not imagine that that is the case, but here we are. We are debating, “Well, if we just gave in every time when young people misbehave, the problem would go away.” That seems to be the solution. I am not accusing the Labor Party of necessarily saying that. In fact, parts of the Labor Party, during the last few years, have come out fairly hard in relation to juvenile justice. I find that a bit annoying because that is my territory in the right wing. Some members of the Labor Party have come up and said they do not actually have to be soft on juvenile criminals. I agree. We should not be soft on juvenile criminals.
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 26 November 2024]
p6387b-6405a
Hon Peter Collier; Hon Dr Brad Pettitt; Hon Dr Brian Walker; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Tjorn Sibma
We should not be soft on those young people who are making life a misery. It is not only regional country towns— before everybody says it is only happening in regional country towns. It is not. It is happening in the city. It is as common here in the city as it is in regional country towns. It is not isolated to a single geographical area or a single group of people. It is happening everywhere with this lack of respect. I think that giving in to a lack of respect is a terrible outcome. I suspect we make it far, far worse and not better. That is a debate that I hear all the time.
Members probably did not read it, which is kind of a shame, but everybody should read the Corruption and Crime Commission’s report of 11 June 2024, entitled An investigation into allegations of serious misconduct following the death of a young detainee in unit 18 Casuarina Prison. It is a very enlightening read. On page 65, section 304, at the end of the process, the conclusion states —
… the Commission is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that serious misconduct has occurred and has formed no opinions of serious misconduct.
When I read the report, I genuinely understood why, but everybody was outraged. The left and socialists were outraged that the commission had not found serious misconduct against youth custodial officers. Something went wrong; therefore, somebody must be blamed. I recommend that members read parts of the report.
Let us look at some of this report. On page 8, there is a section called, “Condition of the cells”. It states
— When Unit 18 first began to house young people —
Which was July 2022, and here is a quote from a witness —
‘It was essentially a brand new unit … Adult prisoners had been there for a very short period of time. But it was beautiful. It was so much better than the experience of the young people at the Intensive Support Unit at Bankia Hill at the time.’ Deputy Commission Ginbey told the Commission that within ‘a week I think the cohort of young people who were there had taken this maximum-security prison unit and done so much damage’.
…
When Superintendent Coyne started at Unit 18 in May 2023, he ‘was shocked at the condition of the unit’. He had ‘never seen, cells in that type of condition’ in his more than 36 years of experience in custodial settings. The amount of damage to the cells exceeded anything he had seen before. It significantly exceeded the damage that was done to BHDC during the 2013 riots.
Deputy Commissioner Ginbey gave evidence that the condition of the cells ‘has shocked our correctional infrastructure services people, including the architects who do this worldwide, how much damage the young people have been able to do, and also how they’ve so easily been able to overcome the secure lines’.
Part 44 on page 9 states —
Deputy Commissioner Ginbey explained that:
—when you look at the unit and the cells now, there have been multiple modifications made over the course of, you know, the last 18 months, that have on each occasion happened in response to, young people either pulling apart the bed, pulling bricks out. I think we found in the bed frames a 35-kilogram metal frame that was then used to attack staff. The taps were pulled off the wall and put into items of clothing and either used to break other items or to attack staff, and on and on and on and on. So the cells you see now are very different from the cells that the young people were placed into.
An enormous amount of damage was done to the detention unit. There are members who would have us accept that that is everybody’s fault, that the young people in there should have no responsibility placed on them for the damage that they do. That lack of accountability and responsibility is, I believe, a massive difference between those who argued this from the left and those who argued it from a conservative point of view. This is the conclusion about the damage that is done. Section 293 on page 63 of this report states —
The cells are defective because the young people destroy them. They are repaired and then damaged again. YCOs —
Youth custodial officers —
work in constant fear of being hurt. That fear is well founded. The propensity of the young people to damage and assault is undoubtedly contributed to by the degree to which they are confined to their cells. In turn, their confinement is undoubtedly worse because of their destruction and violence.
That is a pretty damning statement, I would have to say. It demonstrates that even in an external review, it is the young people’s behaviour that causes the risk and the threat. That is the risk which youth custodial officers face and that, with the best intention in the world, this bill will address by having prison staff who are transferred there
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 26 November 2024]
p6387b-6405a
Hon Peter Collier; Hon Dr Brad Pettitt; Hon Dr Brian Walker; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Tjorn Sibma
perhaps better trained—perhaps not. I was a bit interested in that. Bear in mind, this report is from June, and it is full of reports of damage and it also addresses the interesting practice of covering cell cameras. I will read this in. Part 96 on page 22 states —
Young people routinely covered the CCTV cameras in their cells. YCO C —
That is their reference —
said that ‘… everyone knew that cameras were covered. They get covered every day, every night. Every single day since I’ve been there they’ve been covered’. YCO C explained that ‘they usually used toilet paper. If they don’t have toilet paper they will get toothpaste, throw toothpaste up there’. The Acting Senior Officer told the Commission that ‘on any night shift I’ve done, there would be at least 90 per cent of the cameras covered by toilet paper every night.’
Just imagine for a minute being the youth custodial officer who has to deal with that. Every night, the cameras are covered multiple times. A youth custodial officer has to go into that cell and uncover them. Every time they do so, they are at risk of direct violence. I will get to the level of violence in these units in a bit. The officers are at risk every time. Detainees in these cells repeatedly cover these cameras. Someone has to go and uncover them repeatedly at risk to their own bodily safety. Obviously, we want to make these cells as damage proof and self-harm proof as possible, but in my view we also have to accept that there is a degree of self-responsibility as a part of this. When the commission said, “YCOs work in constant fear of being hurt. That fear is well founded”, it was not an exaggeration.
As a result, being the vestigial right wing of Parliament—perhaps me and Hon Tjorn Sibma over here—I asked some questions around exactly what that meant. I asked questions without notice, but obviously they were a bit complicated, so they were taken on notice. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised with the degree of detail in the answers that came back. I think it is quite interesting. The first in my series of questions was asked in early September but had to be put on notice and I got the answer back in October. It was about the damage done to Banksia Hill Detention Centre in the May 2023 riot. Here are some bits that might interest members. I asked —
(a) has all the damage done in the 2023 riot now been repaired;
The answer was —
(a) No.
There was that much damage, it is still being repaired. My next question was —
(b) what is the latest total cost of the damage done in the May 2023 riot;
The answer was —
(b) $21,286,605.
That is 21 and a quarter million dollars’ worth of damage in one riot. The next question was —
(c) what is the total cost of damage done by detainees to Banksia Hill Detention Centre since March 2017;
That is when the government took office. This is not a slight on the government. I think the government has been pretty conservative in its approach to this. The total cost was $25 131 780. Bear in mind that was back in September. There is another $4 million worth of damage on top of the $21 million. There is $25 million in total. There was $21 million worth of damage in one riot and another $4 million with the constant damage that is being done in these units—absolutely constant damage. I thought that was interesting. I was more interested in the questions I followed up with. I received a range of information. It was in questions on notice 2168 and 2169 in the end. Question 2168 refers to Banksia Hill. Bear in mind that the average population of Banksia Hill is about 70 inmates, I asked how often staff are assaulted in Banksia Hill. How dangerous is it to work there? How dangerous are those young people who are detainees in Banksia Hill? I asked —
(b) on how many occasions have Banksia Hill custodial staff been assaulted by detainees in the following years:
(i) 2023; and
(ii) 2024 to date;
In 2023 in Banksia Hill, bear in mind with 70 detainees, there were 158 assaults. In 2024 to date, which was in September, there were 119. Sure, not all those assaults caused grievous bodily harm; some of them were relatively minor, but they were still assaults. If a member were slapped by somebody in the Parliament courtyard, that would be assault and they could quite rightly press charges. They would take that incident very seriously. It may threaten their wellness and peace of mind. I imagine they would be quite stressed and would need to take a day off Parliament to deal with it. A total of 158 assaults occurred in 2023 and 119 assaults occurred to September 2024. According to the answer the government gave me a bit over a month ago, a youth custodial officer is assaulted every two days.
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 26 November 2024]
p6387b-6405a
Hon Peter Collier; Hon Dr Brad Pettitt; Hon Dr Brian Walker; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Tjorn Sibma
It is a dangerous place to work. Those detainees are not innocent angels who have been inappropriately incarcerated. I have to love the position that the left take on this—that they are little angels who misbehaved a bit and are in prison by accident. Nobody is in Banksia Hill Detention Centre or unit 18 because they stole a can of baked beans to eat because they were hungry. Nobody is in there for misdemeanours. I thought Hon Dr Brian Walker was going to go a bit harder and right wing when he made comments about this earlier, before he slipped back to the left.
Hon Darren West: He was highly aroused there for a while.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Was he? Okay! The excitement of being a bit right wing was probably too much for him at the time. He is an excellent fellow all the same and a good member of this house.
Hon Tjorn Sibma: He’d have drained the swamp with this conversation.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Oh, dear! Very good.
That is interesting, but question on notice 2169 is even more interesting, bearing in mind that it dealt with unit 18, which is what the Corruption and Crime Commission’s report of 11 June 2024 examined. I asked how many assaults on staff had occurred in unit 18 for the same period. We should bear in mind that the average population of unit 18 is approximately 12 detainees—about a dozen detainees. Here are a couple of numbers for members. In 2023, the total number of assaults on staff in unit 18 was 277. The total number assaults on staff in unit 18 to September 2024 was 132. There had probably been a bit of improvement, but when we average that out, a staff member in unit 18 is assaulted every day and a half, and that is with an average of 12 detainees.
The level of threat and violence in these places is enormous. I do not think too many people would like to take that on. It is all very well to say that if we treat detainees well, they will not be violent. They probably will not be violent if we give them everything that they want, but as soon as we cannot give them everything they want, the violence will return. It is not a safe environment. It is not a place for the faint of heart. The staff operate in an incredibly dangerous environment. Frankly, I get incredibly frustrated with the communal debate that says that these poor little angels are in there by accident, and they should be let out because they do not pose a risk to anybody. In fact, they are a risk to the people who are keeping them incarcerated and they are a risk to each other because, bear in mind, those assault numbers represent assaults on staff; it does not include assaults on other detainees et cetera. It is ridiculous to suggest that this group is not a threat. This is a dangerous cohort of people. We ask government workers to come in and manage this particularly dangerous cohort of people. We have a department, a commissariat, for it, and its job is to supply people and materials for that purpose. It struggles because it is not easy and it is dangerous work.
I struggle with this argument that says these poor dears are victims. I do not think they are victims. I think the victims are out there in the community, and, for a little while, whilst the detainees are detained, the victims have some freedom and safety. Most importantly, I think that people have to take responsibility for their actions. That is what defines me as being a conservative and being of the right wing. I am defined by believing that people have to take responsibility for their actions.
I have spoken to the Minister for Corrective Services, Hon Paul Papalia, about this, and he tells me they are working very hard to reduce the risk, the threat and the violent incidents in these places. He told me that when violence is reduced, time out of cells is increased, and there is a general increase in happiness. That is great. But the violence has to stop first. It is not sufficient to say that if we give them what they want, they might stop the violence and might actually behave themselves. That is not an option. That is where I think this debate and society has this horrendously wrong. Obedience to the law is not optional; it is important, and it has to come first. When it comes first, all these privileges come from that. Good behaviour leads to privileges. Bad behaviour should lead to those privileges being removed. This is the basics of “Supernanny”. Maybe we just need to take a bit more of a look at that process as a part of this.
I cannot believe, to be honest, the work of the prison officers union et cetera and the youth custodial officers. I am interested enough. I do not mind. They give the government a hard time and they attack you guys. I think that is a good hobby; we should all indulge in a bit of that! But, in reality, whatever side of politics we are on, my view is that we should be on their side first. They should be a part of that as well. It is not just about throwing more officers in and throwing more money at everybody. I know that is what unions tend to do; they say, “Give us more money, and everything will be okay.” I do not believe that for an instant. We should set a standard that says take responsibility for your behaviour and that the protection of youth custodial officers is the prime thing. They need to go to work and be safe in exactly the same way that we demand that. We ask them to go in when it is not safe, and do members know what? When we do so, we should absolutely have their backs and say, “We understand. We are sending you into an unsafe environment. The young people who are causing that actually come a bit behind your safety as a part of that process, and they have to behave first.” Their behaviour becomes the driver of the outcome rather than the outcome being placated and simply trying to ask them, cap in hand, to behave themselves after that. It does not work, it has not worked, and it will not work. I would be interested in the minister’s response,
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 26 November 2024]
p6387b-6405a
Hon Peter Collier; Hon Dr Brad Pettitt; Hon Dr Brian Walker; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Tjorn Sibma
but my understanding is that a bit of tough love in those youth custodial areas has probably resulted in better behaviour because the assault rate in some places has gone down a bit. I understand they are spending more time out of their cells. I would like the response to say, “You know what? We showed a bit of tough love, and the response has been an improvement.” Maybe that means that tough love might actually work, and “Supernanny” might be partly right. I think that would be a pretty good outcome.
Ultimately, I do not think it matters whether we have prison officers or youth custodial officers staffing those units. A lot of these kids are big, strong and reasonably scary, and perhaps the prison officers may be better physically able to manage that process. We, as a Parliament, should absolutely give them the message that it is a difficult job and we have their backs, because I tell members what, the media does not. I fully expect to get lambasted by the media for being a far-right reactionary, or something along those lines, as a part of this process. That is another one for members! I think it is amazing that I have these figures, yet I struggle to get any interest from the media about how prison youth custodial staff are being treated. It is like an anathema. People cannot see anything but boohoo for the inmates. The poor dears. They are locked up. How terrible is that? No. Maybe it is time to drain the swamp in that regard. It is time for us to demand better behaviour and have the backs of youth custodial officers or prison officers and say that we think they deserve a safe workplace, and if it requires a bit of tough love to do that, guess what? Just tough.
