Submission to the ACT Human Rights Audit and Review of Treatment of Women at AMC
ANU Prisoner’s Advocacy Association (ANUPA)
6 July 2013
About ANUPA
[1]In September 2012, a group of ANU students formed a new ANU Student Association - Prisoner’s Advocacy (ANUPA). The Association’s focus is twofold - advocating for prison reform and improving prisoner’s access to rehabilitation, employment education and other programs while incarcerated. ANUPA is an affiliated association of the ANU Student’s Association.
[2]ANUPA’s membership of approximately 120 members is drawn from across all faculties at ANU. Its members include students who work as volunteers in a range of community services related to the criminal justice system. A number of members regularly visit prisoners and undertake voluntary work with prisoners groups.
The focus of this submission
[3]This submission draws on the observations of ANUPA members who have,since 2012, visited the Women’s Section of the Prison. It also draws on ongoing discussions with women ex-women about their experience of imprisonment and their capacity to effectively reintegrate into society after release.
[4]The underlying principle on which this submission is based is that corrective services should maximize the opportunity to rehabilitate prisoners through meaningful education and address their mental health, alcohol and drug dependence, conditions that are over represented in the prisoner population.
[5]The submission’s focus is on administrative systems and design elements that impede the capacity of the AMC to comply with the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 and Discrimination Act 1991. The submission is structured around two key areas: access and participation in education and rehabilitation programs and the impact of co-location of women in a male prison on women’s access to such programs.
Access and participation
[6] The Corrections Management (Reception and Management of Female Prisoners) Policy2010 (ACT) states that:
“All female prisoners will have access to the same level of programs,
education, recreation, medical, and mental health services as male prisoners”.
[7]ANUPA considers that equity of access between male and female prisoners to programs and health services has not been achieved at AMC. Evidence to support this view includes:
[7.1]A single Education Unit provides the entire prison population with educational resources of a small library, computers, desks and access to a librarian. Male prisoners are reported to have more frequent access to the Educational Unit than women prisoners who report their access is limited to two hours once a week. There is no evidence that the literacy and numeracy of prisoners is assessed on entry nor monitored to establish progress as a result of participation in educational programs.It is understood that women on remand are significantly disadvantaged as they are ineligible to take part in education and health programs. This is despite the fact that some remandees are incarcerated longer than sentenced prisoners.
[7.2]A lack of access to and participation in physical exercise activities is reported by women to have led to weight gain.In the women’s area a gardening hot house lies idle and unused with no equipment and broken or non-functioning water pipes. The expansive lawns have no garden beds in contrast to the male section, where Kitchen Gardening is available as an activity. A basket ball/ tennis court has no hoop or tennis net. Soccer is available to males and not women. There is no organized physical activity for the women to take part in. Instead, it is up to the women to get together a group and arrange equipment and only then can they undertake sports. The women do not have access to the gym in the male area. Their small gym is uninspiring, with limited equipment and there has been no use made of the physical environment to create accessible exercise activities ie a walking or running track.
[7.3]The desultory and gender stereotyped education activity programfor the women is evident in a typical week of activities for women has been:
Hairdressing - Monday;Cooking - Tuesday; Education Unit - Wednesday; Art - Thursday and no programs offered on Friday.
Women have reported classes do not meet their learning needs. ANUPA observed that learning opportunities did not appear to impose expectations on the women and did not appear to imbue any aspiration amongst them for self improvement.
[7.4]It is understood that AMC elected to adopt a vocational education and training model (VET) in preference to activities based around industry. The impact of this on women is that there are limited opportunities for them to undertake work functions within the prison.A program available to male prisoners in the construction of miner bird traps is not available to women. The women report having little to no access to prison “jobs” compared with male prisoners who have access to a wide range of ‘jobs” such as bins, kitchen, administration, laundry and gardening. Even for mainstream sentenced women, the provision of meaningful daily activity is unable to be met for such a diverse yet small group.The focus on VET has resulted in a lack of industry or practical training.
[7.5]A mother-and baby room is only notionally available within one of the cottages for women prisoners. It is yet to have been put to use despite pregnant women being held in prison or having given birth while in custody.
[7.6] Women have reported that on admission to prison, it has taken over a week to access personal hygiene products. The free personal hygiene kits that were once available to women on entry are no longer accessible. With the delay in buy-ups, women can go for up to two weeks without basics like toothbrushes, toothpaste and shampoo.
[7.7]It is understood that women have to date been denied services such as the Transitional Release Centre or Therapeutic Community, or are placed within male units (such as the CSU) to the detriment of their human rights.
The suitability of co-location
[8]It is ANUPA’s view that the majority of the issues noted in Section 7 would be resolved if women prisoners were accommodated in a women’s custodial facility based in the ACT. It is suggested this would focus program attention on women prisoners and would draw on international best practice models.
[9]ANUPA considers the obstacles in accessing high quality educational and recreational programs geared to the needs of female prisoners is an unintentional result of the prison group with greatest numbers receiving priority over a minority group. In practice the AMC houses around 13 women and around 250 male prisoners. It appears that the male prisoners have perhaps inadvertently received priority of access to resources and programs to the detriment of women prisoners.
[10]It is also suggested that the policy of co – location of a small number of women prisoners inside a predominantly male prison may be fatally flawed.
[11]Due to the small numbers of women prisoners, those with particularly high security classifications or on strict protection must endure solitary segregation. In comparison, larger custodial facilities, such as those in NSW,have higher numbers of such prisoners and are thus able to avoid solitary segregation.
[12]The small population of the ACT and its geographical scale means that women are often incarcerated with fellow prisoners with whom they share an antagonistic and hostile past.In a larger jurisdiction, they maybe housed in facilities many hundreds of kilometers away.In the AMC women live a few meters apart, with the result that hostility festers and the prison officers are required to resort to locking down one group of women in one cottage while another has access to the grounds. Tensions between women prisoners appear to have led to a practice of dispersing women between the cottages rather than fully housing each cottage.This exacerbates the isolation already prevalent due to low numbers.
Recommendations
[13]We acknowledge that a major reason behind developing a prison in the ACT was to aid the continuance of familial relationships. However, prioritizing this at the expense of real opportunities for rehabilitation is not a viable long-term solution, and merely entrenches the cycle of recidivism. We suggest there are two feasible options available to the ACT Government to ensure appropriate and meaningful programs and facilities for women prisoners:
[14]Establish awoman only correctional facility in the ACT to address the issues noted in this submission.At such a facility there should be adequately funded appropriate and meaningful programs and facilities for women prisoners, or
[15]Return to a policy of housing the very small number of ACT women prisoners in neighbouring jurisdictionsso as to ensure their access to essential educational, rehabilitation and recreational facilities and programs currently not provided at AMC.
1 | ANUPA Submission to the ACT Human Rights Audit and Review of Treatment of Women at AMC: 7/7/2013