A flawed Compass: a human Rights Analysis of the Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety

Cost

It is interesting to note that the only significant expenditure of the Panel to obtain objective third-party “evidence” occurred in relation to their proposal for regional complexes.

To validate the hypothesis as much as possible, the Panel contracted with Deloitte & Touche to independently estimate the costs of constructing and operating a new regional complex facility versus the status quo.

Overall, Deloitte & Touche concluded that although a significant level of rigour has been applied to developing several aspects of the cost estimates and that this has been conducted in a manner consistent with CSC’s methodologies and practices, it may be possible that the analysis is overly weighted towards “business as usual.” That is, although the capital, operating and lifecycle estimates are consistent with CSC methodologies, they may not represent the most advanced thinking, such as that available from other departments (for procurement timelines), jurisdictions or third- party advisors. The underlying assumptions for the analysis may be considered reasonable only to the extent that CSC baseline data and standards (such as resource indicators) are reasonable. In many respects, the complex may be considered a transformational business model, potentially requiring new operating approaches and standards. ³⁵⁹

While we applaud the Panel for seeking something more tangible than their beliefs to ground their recommendations in this case, there are two important observations that need to be made about the Deloitte & Touche report:

1. 
   the mandate was extremely limited – with a singular focus on cost while ignoring virtually all other correctional and human rights considerations, and
   
2. 
   the report’s conclusions about costs are cautious and equivocal.
   

Based on the lack of clarity or conviction reflected in the Deloitte & Touche report itself, we cannot understand either the unbridled enthusiasm of the Panel for this proposal or the apparently uncritical endorsement of their recommendations by the Minister and CSC.

4. An Alternative Planning Approach

It is instructive to compare the process and analysis that characterises the Panel’s rush to judgment on correctional regional complexes as the organizational/design paradigm of the 21^st century with that reflected in the commissioning and construction of the Australian Capital Commission’s first multi level security prison, the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC).³⁶⁰ It was also the first prison in Australia to be conceptualised, designed and constructed under the framework of human rights legislation. As described by John Paget, the director of this project:

The decision by the ACT government to proceed with the construction of the AMC and bring into law the Human Rights Act 2004, posed a key question, which is that in responding to the rights of all prisoners and to the specific rights of those who are unwell, who are damaged, disabled or discriminated against, what would a prison designed, constructed and operated under a framework of human rights actually look like?³⁶¹...

The Preliminary Assessment for the site drew upon the Functional Brief for the AMC. Reflecting the fact that human rights legislation was imminent, the Assessment notes that ‘A prison in the ACT would reflect a Human Rights-based approach to prison management with a focus on rehabilitation within the context provided by the “Healthy Prison” model’. The Functional Brief was the primary document which informed the design of the AMC. While it was crafted in the emerging human rights environment, like the Preliminary Assessment, it initially sought design inspiration through an interpretation of the “Healthy Prison” model adopted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons which, in turn, had borrowed the concept from the World Health Organisation (WHO 1998). The elements of this model are that everyone is and feels safe, that is, staff, prisoners and those who work in or visit the prison; everyone is treated with respect as a fellow human being; everyone is encouraged to improve themselves and given the opportunity to do so through access to purposeful activity; and everyone is enabled to maintain contact with their family and is prepared for release. The passing of the ACT Human Rights Act in late 2004 reinforced and validated this design direction of the AMC.³⁶²

To ensure, then, that the architecture of the AMC would stand up to the inevitable criticism the Functional Brief was circulated throughout Australia to correctional practitioners, architects, public and capital works staff, academics, inspectorial staff, mental health professionals, Indigenous people, and senior professional women with experience in corrections, education, health and Indigenous issues. This process of “peer review” was also necessary to ensure the Functional Brief was sufficiently rigorous and comprehensive.³⁶³

The Alexander Maconochie Centre is a small (300 bed) single prison complex. The Panel is proposing a transformation of an entire prison system for thousands of prisoners. Any move to change the approach to prison construction must involve very broad and detailed consultations. The premises and assumptions must be seriously challenged and the feasibility tested in terms of the human rights implications. The Panel has not suggested any sort of public consultation process to test or refine their proposals. Neither have seen any indication that CSC intends to engage in a peer review process.

5. Conclusion

The Panel’s assessment is blind to the likely impact of the government’s current criminal justice policies, as well as to their own recommendations, on the size of future prison populations. In addition no attempt was made to consider the potential problems regional complexes might create. Their selective profiling of the regional complex model resembles a sales pitch more than a serious and thoughtful planning document. It seems ill-advised, and the antithesis of responsible correctional governance, to build an infrastructure of prisons – buildings that typically last for over a hundred years - on such a weak foundation. Any plan, especially one as massive and permanent as regional complexes, must be seriously challenged in the planning stages if we are to avoid having many future generations saddled with expensive, obsolete structures. Sadly, once again, there is no recognition of the relevance, importance, or even the existence, of human rights and their implications for their proposed design.

12.