Past and Present: Recent Developments in ‘Corrections’

In 2009 the then Minister for Corrections, Ms. Lisa Singh, embarked on the development of a ten-year strategic plan for Tasmanian Corrections. Stakeholder consultations resulted in the publication of a discussion paper prior to the release of the final plan, which identified six outcome areas:

 sentencing options,  community engagement,

 offender rehabilitation and reintegration and community safety,  integrated and accessible service delivery,

 workforce development and support and

 integrity and governance. (Department of Justice, 2009)

In regards to the delivery of programs and educational services to prisoners in Tasmania the report states that while existing programs “show great promise” they “often lack the scope and scale they need to make a significant difference”

(Department of Justice, 2009, p. 1). The discussion paper states that stakeholders want to see an increase in learning which relates to gaining employment including trade- based training, partnerships with employers and acknowledged that “more could be done, especially in the area of vocational education” (p. 43).

The discussion paper also acknowledges that imprisonment without rehabilitation increases the risk of reoffending and it supported the use of the ‘risk needs responsivity’ (RNR) model (Department of Justice, 2009). The Tasmanian

75

Ombudsman’s report (Ombudsman Tasmania, 2010) highlighted the lack of activities to prisoners housed in the Tamar unit within Risdon Prison. It is likely that those community members housed within these units would be ‘high risk’ offenders, and given the basis of the RNR model, they are those most in need of program delivery to address their criminogenic needs. However, all prisoners interviewed stated that the regime was “boring and soul destroying’’ (p. 97) in the Tamar Unit. The report also stated that “the boredom is extremely oppressive, with nothing to stimulate the prisoners other than hours and hours of television” (p. 98). This unit lacks any space for group programs or education and no programs or industry was available to these prisoners. The report states that the availability of educational programs “remains limited” (p. 99). Further, the unit is one which “does not reflect respect for the inherent dignity of the prisoners. Nor does it reflect any aim towards their reform or rehabilitation” (p. 100). It is possible, that despite standards and performance targets, a prison can still practice violence and the abuse of prisoners’ basic human rights (Liebling, 2004). The report provides a glimpse of the reality of prison life in Tasmania for some prisoners, particularly those labelled as ‘troublesome’. For four years the unit continued operating in this manner, despite impending legal action, Ombudsman investigations and numerous complaints from stakeholders. This approach can be contrasted with the Corrections Plan Discussion Paper which states, “punishment is embodied in the loss of freedom imposed on an offender by the court. It is not appropriate for Correctional Services to impose any further punishment on the offender, that is, corrective services should avoid cruelty and deprivation” (Department of Justice, 2009, p. 10).

Two Masters theses were found on the Tasmania Prison Service, aside from the authors’ Honours research in 2008, Paterson in 1988 and Cianchi in 2009. These

76

studies, despite the years which separate them, find some consistent themes which will be discussed in this section.

There are many ways that prison staff can punish prisoners including delaying requests, refusing to allow prisoners to move around within the complex, failing to pass on messages, unduly searching cells or prisoners and the indiscriminate use of prison rule infractions (Paterson, 1988). Many officers are “reluctant to interact with prisoners despite the fact that it these relationships that are necessary” to ensure rehabilitation and the good order of the prison environment (Cianchi, 2009, p. 25) and it was stated that some officers do not even view prisoners as human beings (Cianchi, 2009). The attitudes of prison staff are thought to directly influence the success of rehabilitation programs and the successful reintegration of prisoners after their release (Kjelsberg, Skoglund, & Rustad, 2007).

Interestingly, in the 1980’s and 1990’s prisoners were producing their own television program ‘Live at Five’ for internal broadcast (Evans, 2004), they also participated in hobby groups, adult education programs and AA meetings, being released in the evenings at 6pm to attend a wide variety of learning activities

(Paterson, 1988). A peer literacy program commenced in 1982 and by 1994 there was a wide variety of vocational education courses on offer such as tree felling, chainsaw use, dairy farm management, diesel engineering, horticulture, welding and carpentry (Evans, 2004). Prisoners travelled between prisons and out in to the community to participate in education and training, surprisingly comprising prisoners from all classification levels (Evans, 2004). It is possible that the rise in risk assessment and ‘moral panics’ of the period (Evans, 2004), along with a focus of recruitment from police services and other quasi-military organisations, worked in combination to limit any further continuation of prisoners exiting the prison for education and learning. An

77

overriding focus on security and containment may not allow prisoners to engage with the community in a meaningful way and may limit pro-social learning opportunities.

In regards to the delivery of programs and education within the Tasmanian Prison Service, significant change has occurred and, unfortunately, with the exception of the growth in the Integrated Offender Management Unit, this has not necessarily enhanced prisoner education and learning opportunities. With the increased prisoner numbers leading to overcrowding prior to the development of the new prison

complex, security became the dominant focus of staff and management. The opening of the new prison complex has alleviated overcrowding; however, the design of the new prison does not allow sufficient space for learning and education activities to occur (Scurrah, 2008). Research (Scurrah, 2008) highlights the lack of adequate human resources in education and the inadequacy of systems and processes to ensure delivery to a standard expected within the wider community.

In order to meet the demands for the provision of nationally recognized qualifications, the Prisoner Education and Training Unit, located within the old Risdon Prison complex became a Registered Training Organisation in 2002. The purpose of education and vocational training focuses solely on employment and reintegration outcomes and is available only to those with “the need, capacity and ample time in custody…subject to the availability of appropriate courses and

resources. Access will be determined by their assessed needs, personal goals and past record in relation to participation and completion of courses” (Department of Justice, 2006, p.1).

In 2007 the Prisoner Education and Training Unit failed its annual audit, revealing that the Registered Training Organisation was non-compliant on all but one of the AQTF standards for continued registration (Tasmanian Qualifications

78

Authority, 2007). This report notes that there was an absence of training materials, a lack of competent trainers and assessors, along with no evidence of continued

professional development and no training and assessment strategies for the delivery of qualifications within their scope (Tasmanian Qualifications Authority, 2007). User choice state-based funding was withdrawn from the Registered Training Organisation for trainees and apprentices at the prison in 2008 (Department of Justice, 2010b), further contributing to a lack of funds available for vocational education and training. By 2009, documentary data reveals that for the prisons Registered Training

Organisation there were only 2 completions in Certificate II in Laundry Operations and 4 completions in Certificate II in Hospitality (Right to Information Request, April 10, 2014). Since the demise of the Registered Training Organisation, the Tasmanian Prison Service uses TasTAFE (formerly Skills Tasmania and Tasmania Polytechnic) for the provision of formal vocational education and training to prisoners.

Since 2008 there have been a number of innovative learning programs offered to prisoners in Tasmania. In 2009, there were four projects funded by Skills Tasmania Equity Support Small Grants including a theatre skills workshop, a mural for Ron Barwick Prison during which participants completed a Certificate III in Scaffolding, a barista course for the women’s prison and extended to Ron Barwick prison and literacy and numeracy embedded in an art course (Skills Tasmania, 2010). In 2009 in collaboration with Assistance Dogs Australia, the Pups in Prison program was

launched, it commenced in 2010 and involved seven prisoners in Ron Barwick Prison (Assistance Dogs Australia, 2009). Other innovative programs include prisoners assisting with the repair of fences after bushfires, refereeing at local football matches and working in community gardens. Unfortunately, programs such as these are only available to a very small and limited number of prisoners. However, one program

79

which has involved a significantly larger number of prisoners is the ‘Reading

Together’ program. This program commenced in 2008 and involves prisoners reading storybooks on to CD which are then sent to their children (Crikey, 2010). The Red Cross also commenced negotiations in 2008 to create prisoner mentors within the Tasmanian Prison Service (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2010) and received funding of $65,000 from the Tasmanian Community Fund (Tasmanian Community Fund, 2008). The mentoring program delivers to chosen prisoners a Certificate II in Community Services which allows them to take a role as prisoner mentors. The aim of the program is to assist with the reduction of bullying and to reduce attempted suicides and self-harming within prison (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2010).

In the past the Department of Education’s flexible delivery services also provided Year 11 and 12 subjects to prisoners, however, this agreement with the Colleges was ceased in 2014 due to a decision that they were no longer appropriate for the prison population. The Departments’ flexible delivery services is essentially distance education with students receiving written materials and assessments, with no face-to-face component. This type of learning requires self-direction on the part of the learner (Rowntree, 1990) and distance learners are more likely to have insecurities about learning (Knapper, 1988).