Motion - Consideration & Noting - Office of the Custodial Inspector - Reception to Release report 2025
Tuesday 8 September 2026
Office of the Custodial Inspector - Custody: Reception to Release Inspection Report 2025 - Consideration and Noting
Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I move -
That the Office of the Custodial Inspector's Custody: Reception to Release Inspection Report 2025 be considered and noted.
Mr President, I thank members for their patience for bringing on this motion. It's been on the notice paper for some time, which I hope has given everyone a good opportunity to take a look at this important report. Immediately on reading the note from the Custodial Inspector at that time, Richard Connock, on Custody: Reception to Release Inspection Report 2025, you will find significant praise for the Tasmania Prison Service and their staff, particularly in relation to the issue of people being released from custody after close of business. What the inspector notes is that, when people are unexpectedly released later in the day, they are unable to access personal items or money, have difficulty accessing public transport, and assuming they had friends, family, or someone else who could pick them up and take them where they needed to go, having a safe place to sleep for the evening. The inspector notes the regular and positive examples of the Tasmania Prison Service's staff's empathetic understanding of these situations, noting that they often go above and beyond to work past their usual hours, wait with recently released people in the dark, or help to find crisis accommodation and liaise with charities.
As the inspector further notes, relying on goodwill is not a long‑term solution to the issue of problematic release timing and circumstances. I think we can all agree that it should not fall to the Tasmania Prison Service staff to shoulder that burden. The inspector further notes that if this problem is not resolved, it could have potentially dangerous consequences. Multiple options were canvassed, according to the inspector, some of which were viable and reasonable and some of which were not. The inspector noted that the most meaningful solution is people voluntarily restricting their liberty by staying in prison another night. For most people that would be repugnant, but for those with no other option, it would likely be welcomed. The inspector further notes that this is an option for people in custody in other jurisdictions in Australia and it should be considered here. All that would be needed to facilitate this is a simple legislative amendment.
The inspector further raises the issue of inconsistent and unclear induction information for people coming into custody, but notes the introduction of video inductions, which are an excellent improvement for those with no or limited literacy. The inspector also considered standards relating to people on remand and notes that the new Southern Remand Centre has been a welcome development for men on remand, but there's still no separate remand facility for women. The inspector further considered classification, determining whether someone is placed in minimum-, medium- or maximum-security facilities. The inspector noted that the main issue arising was that the transparency of the process could be improved, primarily by providing for those in custody to be actively involved in the process. The inspector observed positive improvements in relation to the internal complaints process, but emphasised problems with external complaints, particularly in relation to contacting the Integrity Commission, which was described as neither easy nor confidential. To this end, a recommendation to enable people in custody to easily and confidentially call the Integrity Commission to discuss reporting serious misconduct or to seek assistance with submitting a written complaint has also been made by the inspector.
A total of eight recommendations are made in this report. A review of the implementation of the previous 21 recommendations showed promising progress, according to the inspector. It was deemed that 13 of those recommendations were completed, with the remaining eight still in progress. In the 2025 report, the following recommendations were made:
(1) Improve accessibility and consistency of induction materials.
(2) Diversify and publicise within the prisons the manner in which people in custody can provide a representation to the Classification Review Panel.
(3) The Tasmanian Parliament amends the Corrections legislation to enable people in custody to request to stay beyond their release date if there's sufficient reason to justify it, such as a lack of transport.
(4) Internal complaints process information should be made clearer and be consistent across induction manuals for the various prisons.
(5) Tasmania Prison Service engages with the Integrity Commission with the view to add its phone number to the Common Auto Dial List on the prison telephone system, Unity.
(6) Tasmania Prison Service introduces processes so the details of professional calls are only provided to the relevant person in custody.
(7) The Tasmanian Parliament legislate to require that correspondence between people in custody and complaint and oversight bodies such as the Integrity Commission, the Anti‑Discrimination Commissioner and the Independent Regulator is only opened by the intended recipient.
(8) Tasmania Prison Service consults with the Tasmania Law Library and takes action to ensure that the legal textbooks available to people in custody outside the Southern Remand Centre are in accordance with the Director's Standing Order 4.16 Access to Legal Resources. Steps should include ensuring the texts are appropriate to meet the legal needs of people in custody, the existence of the textbooks is well-known, and they are easily accessible to borrow.
The report notes that for those inducted into custody, there is a literacy gap and that the induction process should not rely on people being able to understand written information. This could be due to any number of reasons and it's clear that when people are unable to, or have difficulty with, reading written English, being able to understand their rights and obligations whilst in custody is paramount. Pleasingly, the Tasmania Prison Service created an induction video for the Southern Remand Centre that received positive feedback from people in custody.
The report suggested that peer support for people in custody should be formalised and expanded. Peer support is the practice of pairing a person who is new to the prison system with a more experienced person in custody, to show them around and lend support as they adjust to prison life. The more experienced peers are chosen based on their demeanour and ability to connect with newer and more vulnerable persons in custody. However, the report noted that this appears to be a reasonable system but, without formalised peer support, misinformation about procedures and policy may inadvertently be taught to people and gaps in knowledge will persist. Positively for the Mary Hutchinson Women's Prison, peer support was noted to be widely used, and the report noted the Tasmania Prison Service plan to work with the Red Cross to train peer support workers, and Men's Resources Tasmania have been facilitating some peer groups in male facilities.
The practice of holding people on remand separate from those who have been sentenced is noted as a United Nations standard minimum rule for the treatment of prisoners. The report notes that, at the time of writing, the total number of remanded people made up around 39 per cent of the total prison population, however, there's no separate facility for women who are being held on remand and, to this end, it recommends that investment in infrastructure to ensure unsentenced women are separated from those who have been sentenced is necessary and should be incorporated into the department's corrections strategy.
Glaringly, the report stated that people on remand have insufficient access to employment, education and programs and that they're not required to work or undertake rehabilitative programs related to their alleged offending. It's clear that having access to resources, education, programs and employment, even if not necessarily related to alleged offending, can have a therapeutic and rehabilitative effect for people held on remand. It has the potential to emphasise what a productive member of our community looks and acts like.
At the Southern Remand Centre in particular, it was noted that there were not enough employment positions in the facility for all those who wanted to work and there was limited access to education. Moreover, programs addressing offending behaviours were also not available to people on remand at the Southern Remand Centre.
The report also noted that historically shared cell risk assessment was inadequate but had improved. While there can be good reasons for placing two people in one cell, the report states that the only test was asking each person whether they agreed to share a cell with a particular person, and if they both said yes, that arrangement would be made. Understandably, the inspector did not consider this to be a rigorous enough process and could leave significant room for power imbalance and risks. A recommendation to change director standing orders regarding shared cell risk assessments was being completed after a time.
The report noted that just over half of people being released from the south are returning to the north or north‑west. This is significant when paired with the issue raised initially that a person being released may not have any way to get transport away from the facility or have anywhere to go. To this end, the report states that travel arrangements after release need to be improved. For those who do not have a friend or family member to pick them up or funds to obtain public transport, they can apply for assistance from the Tasmania Prison Service. However, this relies on them having sufficient literacy skills to do so. It also does not address problems for people who are released and have nowhere to go or to stay in the immediate future.
Combined with the issues also surrounding late releases, those occurring between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., the prospect of sleeping rough and needing to access immediate emergency accommodation becomes apparent. It places stress on people being released and the staff involved and long-term solutions are required.
According to the Corrections Regulations 2018, for people in custody who are sentenced, regulation 23 provides that they are to be released between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. For people in custody who are unsentenced, regulation 24 provides that they are to be released immediately after the order for their detention expires. To this end, the report notes the regulations have no provision for people in custody to request to stay beyond their release date. Therefore, while the Tasmania Prison Service recognises the unsuitability of late releases that result in negative outcomes, they are also bound by the regulations.
It's therefore necessary for us to look at solutions, both legislative and regulatory, and I emphasise recommendation 3 of this report that the Tasmanian parliament amends the corrections legislation to enable people in custody to request to stay beyond their release date if there's sufficient reason to justify it, such as a lack of transport. The report contains a number of case studies, which I won't repeat at this time, but I encourage members to take a look to see how this affects people in real life and consider why legislative change might be required.
Moving on to complaints and grievances, the report found that information about the prison complaints process is often unclear, inconsistent and outdated across the Tasmania Prison Service induction manuals. While prisoners are generally advised to raise concerns with staff first, only some manuals explain how to formally lodge a complaint and many fail to clearly distinguish between operational and confidential complaints. The report recommends standardising and simplifying complaints information across all prisons.
Between 2021 and 2024, the Tasmania Prison Service recorded 1358 complaints, averaging about 450 a year. Around half were operational complaints such as property, prison conditions, health services or accommodation issues, and half were confidential complaints such as allegations against staff, excessive force or serious misconduct. Most complaints were resolved within two weeks, suggesting that the Tasmania Prison Service is generally responsive, although some prisoners expressed a belief that making complaints achieves little.
The report raised significant concerns about confidentiality. Prisoners' professional calls with oversight bodies have sometimes been publicly announced, potentially deterring complaints. It also found that correspondence with some oversight agencies, including the Integrity Commission and Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, lacks the same legal protections as mail to the Ombudsman, and relies on complainants possessing literacy abilities which they might not have. On a positive note, prisoners can now directly contact Tasmania Police by the prison phone system without involving prison staff.
The report also praised official visitors as an effective informal complaints mechanism, noting their independence, accessibility and ability to raise issues directly with prison management.
The report also noted that there were no official Aboriginal visitors at that time ‑ a significant issue considering the over‑representation of Aboriginal people in custody. To date, no expressions of interest have been received from a member of the Aboriginal community in response to recruitment notices. That's not to say continued advertising wouldn't be valuable, but it remains an ongoing difficulty.
Finally, it was noted that access to legal resources was possible, but problematic. Access to legal resources in prison is important, and people in prison have the right to self‑representation and access to up-to-date texts, which are available and accessible. The inspector found this was not always necessarily the case, with texts stacked on bookcases, and not very prominently located. To this end, some sort of basic record‑keeping system was suggested to keep track of text locations and fair usage.
I believe this is an invaluable report which makes a number of common‑sense recommendations. I believe it's important to consider them and to look at what can be done at a legislative regulative level to address them.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Richard Connock, the previous custodial inspector at the time of this report, on his retirement and an outstanding career of public service. Richard made a remarkable contribution through his dedication, integrity and commitment to serving the community. Through his years as commissioner, with several hats, he demonstrated professionalism, fairness and a genuine concern for people, always striving to ensure that concerns were heard and dealt with respectfully. I note this report.
