Youth Justice Facility Development Bill 2025 (No. 19)

Thursday 5 June 2025

[11.40 a.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I was not going to rise to speak, but having heard some of the contributions, I thought I would make a short contribution. I support the comments by the member for McIntyre in a manner. I have been to Ashley on a number of occasions and, as I think is well known here, I have been working with Tasmania Police, supporting our vulnerable youth for over 30 years, going into the police station when they have committed crimes. I have gone in the middle of the night, I have gone in on Saturdays, weekends, sometimes I have gone in two or three times a week, sometimes it might be once a month. I have had a variety of people from as young as 10 to 16 and 17, I have seen all sorts of crimes committed and I have seen all sorts of things happen and all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds, so I understand the situation really well.

Is Ashley perfect? No, it is not. I appreciate the minister being here. The minister and I have had discussions about the situation, particularly the fact that, in the past, we have heard from the government, and I know it is changed now, minister, that they were going to build a facility in the north so that prisoners from the north could be close to their families. From my perspective, I think that is especially important for children and youth from the north, to be close to their families, and I appreciate that I have been told that it needs to be in the south because that is where most of the programs, the facilities, the psychiatrists and the people who might be needed are. But what I would actually like to see, and my understanding is that we do not know what we are going to do with Ashley, is why can we not keep both facilities?

I am hearing people say what a terrible place Ashley is, but as the member for McIntyre says, it is bricks and mortar. Can it have some renovations, can it have a few more changes to maybe make it a bit softer, a bit more of a friendly place? My understanding with Pontville is that it is going to be a different type of place. It is going to be maybe little houses with bedrooms for some of the lower security, where they will be working together. They will do their own cooking, they will do their own washing and some of the people will learn how to manage in a household.

I recently went to Western Australia for a variety of reasons and one of the people I met with was the assistant commissioner of corrections for youth and justice. It is quite amazing what they are doing and talking to him, the changes that they have made with their youth justice and what they are doing over there and the less recidivism they are getting, a totally different system. Still, obviously, remand and some people have the need to be in a facility where they are kept away from the public, but a lot of the things they are doing and the minister did say ‑ and I do not want to put the minister on the spot, seeing as he cannot respond from where he is sitting ‑ but they have looked at some of these other models. Listening to the director, to Rick, there and what they are doing in Western Australia and the limited number that they then have to keep in a locked-up security system is quite amazing and I would hope that we are looking to some other jurisdictions as to what is actually working.

The only thing is that it needs a lot of money on the other end to make sure that we have more people mentoring and being with these people. So, it is not just a matter of building another facility at Pontville that fewer people are in there, but there is a lot of money that needs to be spent in other areas to make sure that it is covered off, that they are not just left to their own devices out in the community or in places where they are taken care of and allowed to go out during the day and basically have someone with them.

I think the member for McIntyre makes a really good point: no-one knows what is happening with Ashley. Why do we have to close it? Why can we not have two? Why can we not have a facility in the north, where some people might require services that we have available in the north? They might not need all the services that are in Hobart. That some of these young people can be close to their families surely is just as important as psychiatrists or some of the wraparound care we have in the south. I still fail to see how that is any different to the argument put up by the government about the reason we needed to have a northern prison facility. It just does not make sense to me.

The other question I have with Pontville is, are youths coming to the station? When I go to the station, maybe it is 7.00 at night. A youth has been charged. Depending on the seriousness of the charges, they may not be bailed because it might be fairly serious. It might be too late for court that night and they might go to court the next day. Often on those occasions they will go at the moment to Ashley, rather than being in a jailhouse or staying at the station.

What is actually going to happen? Just a scenario: you are at the station, there is someone under 18, obviously when I am there because they do not have a guardian or a parent or someone who can come in there. They could be homeless, couch surfing, which is often the situation. They have committed something fairly serious, maybe they have stabbed someone because many of them carry knives and they tell me it is for their protection. Unfortunately, knives for your protection are often used against you. Maybe they have stabbed someone, they got caught the next day, they cannot go to the court that night, that is already closed. Will they have to go to Pontville? That is a long way to go.

Will all of a sudden youth justice not be seen in the north? We will not be using our courts in the north, they will actually all be going south because Pontville obviously is closer to Hobart than it is to Launceston. Or will that person then have to stay basically in a bail house or a jailhouse, whatever you might like to call it, at the station because it is too far to go to the south, but then the next morning to decide what is going to happen to them, they need to go before a magistrate?

I am wondering where the situation is, whereas if we would retain Ashley to keep both facilities and for all common sense. I cannot see the sense, the money that has been spent on it if it needs a little bit of renovation to make it a bit softer, a bit friendlier, but to actually have a northern facility as well for those people who do need to be locked in a facility, but do not need some of the services in Hobart.

I will not go any further about that. I fail to see the benefits in closing it permanently, when it could be an adjunct to Pontville. I have mentioned the Deputy Commissioner and fabulous work they are doing in Western Australia. I spent over an hour, probably closer to two hours, talking to him and it is just amazing the things they are actually doing.

It is a different state with a lot of money, but they are putting their money not into lock‑up facilities, but into people, so that the people are there to support the young people. They are basically with them on a full-time basis to make sure they do not commit crimes, that they go to school, that they learn. I was quite amazed at the results they are getting. Very few recidivisms; obviously, they still get some but compared to other states and what is happening here. I have to admit Western Australia is a state that is really going ahead.

The other concern I have, and I agree with a couple of the members who have spoken, is about removing appeal rights. Coming from a local council background, I have always believed that community have the right to appeal. Not indefinitely and not continually about the same thing, but they do have the right to appeal, and neighbours do have the right to appeal.

I would like to know, is there a problem that has been identified in this case as a reason to take appeal rights away? And also, when we were listening yesterday in the briefings, and I really appreciate the briefing, Acting Leader; it was really good to hear from so many different aspects there that if appeal goes, obviously you can still appeal, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, but then that would take longer.

The other concern with appealing to the Supreme Court is the cost. That some people who may really feel the need to appeal and unless there is a group of them together, it prohibits people appealing if they are genuine appellants. I have a concern there: has there been a problem identified we have not heard about, maybe is there something they are expecting? Otherwise, we really do not want people saying, 'Well, do not worry about it, it is the government, they can do what they like, everybody else has to jump through these hoops, but they do not.' It is an issue.

Public works scrutiny is one of the most important committees in my understanding in the parliament. How can we explain to our constituents, to our community that do not worry about it, this is something that does not have to go through the Public Works Committee.

There is a timeframe; well, everything has a timeframe. It does not matter what it is. No‑one really expects timeframes to be kept. It has been several years already and what is a little bit longer, if it takes a bit longer to do it properly?

It was one of the things, in many discussions I had in Western Australia, that was said to me about a couple of different issues we were discussing: if you cannot do it properly, do not do it at all. That applies to many things. Let us do it properly if we are going to do it, and try not to rush something through with inappropriate scrutiny.

Therapeutic model, future use. I have been told that Ashley is too small to be a prison farm, so it cannot go there. Unfortunately, in the past, I think it might have been the member for Hobart's party at the time, sold Hayes Prison Farm.

Ms O'Connor - We did not sell any GBEs.

Ms ARMITAGE - I have not sold any GBEs either.

Ms O'Connor - There was a global financial crisis; we had to sell something.

Ms ARMITAGE - Unfortunately, I think you chose the wrong thing. As I said, I have not sold any GBEs. From my perspective, we need to have some vision here and that is why I am concerned.

Ms O'Connor - We need a strategy.

Ms ARMITAGE - Well, it is long-term vision, short-term gain and that is the thing with Ashley.

We talk about selling - let us get rid of it and get some money for it. I think the vision needs to be to let us keep two facilities. Let us have one in the south and one in the north. If it needs some work, let us do it. I agree with the member for McIntyre, I totally support her there.

I am not going to go on, as most has been said. I really appreciated the long contribution, particularly by the member for Murchison. I really did not feel I had a need to speak because that covered most things.

Ms Forrest - Thanks for that; it was completely unprepared, so there you go.

Ms ARMITAGE - Mine is not prepared either, I just felt the need after having heard members speak. It is probably better to speak off the cuff rather than having a written speech. Sometimes we forget things, I must say.

In closing, I have concerns about lack of appeal rights. I have always had concerns about not allowing people to express the concerns or worries they have when something is going on nearby. With the medicinal cannabis plant nearby and the gun range, I am not sure how that will affect it. We heard yesterday they are dealing with those issues. Pontville was back in 2013 when it was open before as a detention centre. There were all sorts of concerns about Pontville.

I am listening to any other contributions at the moment. Unless there are some changes and amendments, I am not sure I could support it as it is. I certainly will support the member for Mersey, in that it is important that the Public Works Committee goes through that process. I believe the community are quite happy for the timeframe to be stretched out a little bit to do due process and make sure things are done properly.