Come Hell or High Water:
    The Metropolitan Remand & Reception Prison
John Murray

The maximum security Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (MRRC) was originally designed to be the second private prison in NSW. A change of Government later, it is the jewel in Corrective Service's Crown, signifying a dramatic shift in the Department's philosophy and an alarming portent of things to come.The MRRC utiliises the most current and sophisicated technology available. Traditional front line officers have been virtually eradicted by hi-tech methods of surveillance, including the use of cameras, sniffer dogs, and the imposition of the much lauded bio-metrics (biological identification) system.

Reputedly "escape-proof" and designed to avoid further embarrassing episodes such as Savvas' broad daylight walk-out, Saxon's mysterious disappearance and the reputed Milat-Savvas escape plot, over $85 million has been spent in making the MRRC a technogical Disneyland.Yet, technology may not be all it's cracked up to be. Deer Park, Victoria's first private women's jail, has experienced nothing but difficulties since it's opening nine months ago. Like the MRRC, it employs advanced technology designed to free up the visiting process without sacrificing security. Yet, "visitors get stuck between doors for forty minutes". Similiar complaints were voiced after a recent riot at Woodford Prison in Queensland.

The Prisoners Legal Service reported that both staff and inmates were frustrated by the technology, having difficulty even performing simple tasks such as opening doors. The resulting pent up frustration was cited as one of the reasons for the riot.The new prison has been designed to house 900 inmates, with the potential for expansion. It's unprecedented sheer size is strangely at odds with clear recommendations in The Nagle Report: "Mega prisons...should not be built...Any new prison or any of the older prisons to be redesigned should cater for 200 to 300 inmates. Any smaller number is economically wasteful, any larger number does not permit proper knowledge and handling of the inmates".

Even if the MRRC should stay at this size, it breaks the recommendation threefold.This does not bode well for the unit management lauded by the Department as an effective way of handling inmates. Under any circumstance, the management of 900 people is an overwhelming challenge. Jails smaller than this have experienced problems. Professional workers attending facilities in Queensland and South Australia have complained of extraordinary delays in physically reaching prisoners for pyschiatric assessments or Drug and Alcohol counselling, even once they have navigated the Reception section and actually gotten inside the jail.

The ability to maintain schedules for legal visits, welfare and education, as well as visits to the Hospital will require impeccable timing and co-ordination.

At Woodford Prison in Queensland, even the preparation and delivery of food proved to be a major obstacle. It is difficult to see why it should be different for the new "superjail".Over-reliance on electronic aids as an alternative to officers on the ground may prove a futile and costly expense-saving device. It doesn't do much to foster "normality" in jail. The emphasis on electronic monitoring means restricted one-to-one contact between officers and inmates. The effects of this can only be imagined - more than one pyschiatrist has expressed concern that inmates will have minimal contact with anyone other than other inmates and the occasional officer. The value of any rehabilitative effect that this could have is questionable.It may also be dangerous. As the experience in Deer Park reveals, "officers on the ground can build a relationship with the person...they're much more observant of whether someone's in a fragile state or not. And with a camera, someone can be ten minutes away, and people can die within ten minutes".

Nagle anticipated this in 1978 when he warned that "Television (closed circuit TV) is an aid to the custodial officer and not necessarily a substitute for him". Sadly, Corrective Services appear not to have read the Royal Commission's findings. As a recent visitor remarked: "It looks like the staff and prisoners are just extra bits in a virtual reality jail, a computer jail. And God knows what that could do to somebody. And I mean, they all get out sometime, don't they?"

- END
 To the top of page  




Putting Your finger on the Line:
    Biometric Identification Technology
The NSW Department of Corrective Services has progressively been implementing biometric identification technology (BIT) for use on all entrants into maximum security prisons since August 1996. It currently operates in seven prisons in NSW and is scheduled for introduction at Parklea prison later this year. BIT has raised the ire of many community agencies, the legal fraternity and government authorities. Framed examines what the controversy is all about and what the implications of this technology are.

What is BIT?
BIT uses a 'reader' module to scan thumb and/or finger prints. The digital scan is then converted into a mathematical algorithm. The algorithm identifies the individual and any other personal data entered. The algorithm and related data is stored in a database and may or may not be shared between networked databases. The algorithm tends to be used in conjunction with a digital photographic image which also may or may not be stored. The Department of Corrective Services (the Department) have maintained that the information and the database will not be shared between government and other agencies and that this will be ensured through amendments to prison regulations. However, BIT has already been operating at an establishment cost of $650 000 (in the 7 prisons) for 12 months , without any regulation or legislation.

Why have BIT?
The Department have maintained that BIT is necessary for 3 main reasons:They say BIT will expedite the visitor entry process. The Department claim it will take about 6 minutes for the visitor's print to be taken and a matter of seconds every time thereafter. However, at Long Bay on 19 July 1997, all visitors were made to leave because BIT was failing and on 20 July 1997 when a visitor returned, she complained to CRC Justice Support that it took one hour to have her print taken and retaken with prison staff allegedly accusing her of having deliberately tampered with her fingerprints.They say BIT will keep drugs out of prison. How BIT would end the entry of drugs into prison is anyone's guess, so the assumption is that BIT will be used to prevent entry of convicted and/or suspected drug dealers. However, as the High Court of Australia ruled in Kable's case, punishments cannot be metered out on the basis of suspected future criminal activity.They say BIT will improve prison security. The Government maintains that following George Savvas's_ December 1996 escape, through the front gates of Goulburn prison, that BIT will improve security. This is a diversion from the real issue of incompetent or insufficient staff, but is also not an argument for using BIT on all entrants into the prison system.A meeting of key stakeholders on 28 July 1997 including the Law Society of NSW, the Legal Aid Commission of NSW, Lawyers' Reform Association, the Australian Psychologists' Society, NSW Council for Civil Liberties, CRC Justice Support, Justice Action, Children of Prisoners, Prisoners' Action Group and a representative of Richard Jones MLC considered alternatives that might meet this concern.The stakeholder's view was that for the technology to meet security needs, it needs only prisoners to be biometrically tested. All prisoners and visitors would have their thumb prints scanned on exit, so that if the visitor's print did not register, s/he would be free to leave and no permanent record of the visitor would be held by the Department. This is also cost effective.

Why is BIT of concern?
BIT breaches privacy rights. In a letter to the Minister for Corrective Services, Justice Action co-ordinator Kilty O'Gorman set out the concerns of Brian Foran, Special Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who at a conference in Canada in 1996 said:

1. BIT is not cost-effective for one department to go it alone leading to the potential threat that government would become a single centralised autocratic body. Given that joint officers groups already exist with the Department of Corrective Services and the Department of Police, any regulations limiting access does not meet these concerns. If NSW prisoners only received 2 visitors per year (including family, friends, lawyers, psychologists, housing workers etc.), there would be computerised records with personal identification marks on about 50 000 NSW citizens each year. In 30 years, that would be the amassing of records on 1.5 million NSW citizens.

2. Privacy protection tends only to exist in the public sector and delivering services or benefits electronically depends on private sector involvement. Despite pre-election commitments to broaden privacy laws to the private sector, the Carr Government have not delivered on this promise.

3. An inevitable feature is some sort of access and identification device. The public anger at the proposed Australia Card shows the extent to which Australians want to protect privacy rights. Privacy International have discussed the areas the BIT industry is strategically targeting, emphasising that prisons or 'captive environments' (eg. refugee detention centres, military complexes) make good testing grounds for the broader applications of this technology. BIT is used for Social Security ID Cards in Spain, for welfare recipients in California, drivers' licenses in at least 3 US states and at some airports in Canada and the USA.BIT also criminalises all entrants into the NSW prison system and Children of Prisoners report its arbitrary use on children. A complainant to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties states "I am sure with modern technology that is now available, other methods could have been installed that would be less invasive, less devastating and not such a personal, traumatic experience.î The only other place that you are finger printed is when the police arrest you. To the shock of organisations including the NSW Privacy Committee and members of the Criminal Justice Coalition, there was no public consultation about the introduction of BIT and public consideration of other alternatives, particularly procedural alternatives, to meet the Government's stated objectives.At a meeting of 21 May 1997, between the Criminal Justice Coalition and the Minister for Corrective Services, it was disclosed that the Privacy Committee had never endorsed the use of BIT, despite repeated claims by the Department (dating back to 1996) that the Privacy Committee had approved its use. No justification for the repeated misrepresentation has ever been provided, but the explanation for the lack of public consultation is that as BIT is a security measure, to discuss security measures publicly somehow vitiates their effectiveness.BIT also operates without any regulation, despite its first birthday at Goulburn and Maitland prisons. Legitimate concerns about its arbitrary use, what the information is used for, how long it is stored for, who can access it, how the private contractor, Fingerprint Century, won the contract, what standards they had to meet and what occurs in the event of a breach are yet to be regulated or legislated for. In excess of 50 international, national and state based organisations, including politicians, have signed a petition calling for the suspension of BIT until proper public review has occurred. These organisations represent major legal organisations, privacy groups, welfare groups, government agencies and community based advocates. The Department has maintained that BIT is necessary and must be used on all entrants into prisons and have rejected this call.

- END

To the top of page

The Department of Corrective Services has recently proposed draft regulations that would govern biometric use, despite the fact that the NSW Privacy Committee has yet to issue an evaluation as to the need for the technology or make recommendations for either less evasive alternatives or for implementation of strict privacy protections. It remains the logical and ethical position of the NSW Criminal Justice Coalition that Corrective Services should suspend use of biometrics until the Privacy Committee, community stakeholders and all 'scanning targets' have been adequately consulted. The draft regulations affirm all of the Coalition's concerns about biometrics and have been analysed, critiqued, and rejected in a submission to the Privacy Committee.The Regulations, for example, would allow for expansion of scanning to ALL NSW prisons at the Commissioner's discretion, would enable scanning of children under 18 at a governor's discretion and propose woefully inadequate privacy protections of personal data.

Increasing numbers of complaints continue to be received from prisoners, their friends and families, health, education and welfare workers, staff and officers, even as the Department struggles to impose biometric scanning and to expand its use.

What you can do:
Express your concern, your displeasure or your complaint. By phone, by letter, by fax, by email, in person to:

NSW Privacy Committee Board:
- Ph (02) 9228 8199 Fax (02) 9228 8187NSW Ombudsman:
- Ph (02) 9286 1000 Mob 1 800 451 524 Fax (02) 9283 2911

NSW Minister for Corrective Services Hon. Robert Debus:
- Ph (02) 9289 1444 Fax (02) 9281 1115
Premier of NSW Hon. Robert Carr:
- Ph (02) 9228 5239 Fax (02) 9241 3616

To Your Representatives in Parliament
- (ask for numbers of individual members):
Legislative Council (Upper House):
- Ph (02) 9230 2456 Fax (02) 9230 2761
Legislative Assembly (Lower House):
- Ph (02) 9230 1111 Fax (02) 9230 2828

Contact the Criminal Justice Coalition to receive pre-addressed complaint cards for your distribution to friends, families and other organisations.

Contact the Coalition for an information kit, to volunteer or to make a contribution. The Criminal Justice Coalition can be reached through Justice Action,
which functions as Coalition secretariat,391 Sussex Street, Haymarket 2000 NSW
Ph (02) 9281 5407 or (02) 9281 5100 Fax (02) 9281 5303
Email: cjc@breakout.nlc.net.au

- END

To the top of page

Glock Shock: The One-Sided Arms Race
Randy Winchester

It's late in the football season; police overreact to a rowdy crowd, provoking scuffles and fighting. A poorly trained police officer, having lost his baton, reaches for his Model 22 Glock and accidentally fires, killing a nearby spectator. An unlikely scenario? Not long ago the execution of a disturbed man on Bondi Beach seemed unlikely. Yet, if NSW police are allowed to arm themselves with an unsafe, semi-automatic pistol, then it will only be a short time before the first killings. Recent events - the police killings in Orange, at Bondi and a near fatal shooting at Bourke - show that the police are ill-trained, and can't be trusted with the weapons they now carry, and draw too readily.Glock became the name on the lips of every US gun nut following deft product placement in the Bruce Willis film, Die Hard II. Built to an Austrian military specification in the early 80s, the weapon was heavily promoted, and discounted, to police to boost an ailing armaments industry. Over half the police in the US are now armed with Glocks.Costing taxpayers $11 million, the NSW police Model 22 Glock has a 15 shot magazine and is chambered for .40 Smith & Wesson calibre ammunition. While there are mechanisms to prevent the gun discharging if dropped, etc., there is no external safety catch. If a Glock is loaded, there is no final fail safe mechanism to prevent firing if the trigger is pulled accidentally or inadvertently. To disassemble the gun, the moving parts have to be in the forward position. The only way to achieve this is to pull the trigger when the gun is, you hope, unloaded! A wave of shootings and accidents followed the sale of Glocks pistols to police forces across the USA.
Police have:

Shot themselves, and other officers, when cleaning their guns.

Shot themselves in the leg or foot when reholstering their Glocks.

Shot 'suspects'/bystanders/other police/themselves 'accidentally' on the street.

Over a 20 year period, for every ten rounds fired by Seattle police, three shots were accidental! Yet in 1994, despite this record, Glocks were issued amid widespread questions about unintended firings. Meanwhile, New York police had to produce a training video instructing officers how not to shoot their partners! Their Glocks have been modified twice in an attempt to reduce the number of accidental misfires.

NSW police have justified the introduction of Glocks here by claiming that they need extra firepower to defend themselves against hordes of heavily armed, gun-toting criminals. The government caved in to police demands following the killing of two officers at Crescent Head on the Central Coast.However, the USA experience clearly demonstrates that the more firepower police have, the more bullets they fire, and the more unsafe a community becomes. Outrageously, the NSW police use hollow-point bullets - outlawed under the Geneva Convention on the Rules of War - which expand as they plough through the body, causing wide "wound channelsî and gaping exit wounds in a victim.

Glock bullets are also heavier and faster than the .38 Special slugs currently in use. The net result is that Glock ammo will hit about 50 per cent harder. Why should this be happening now, especially, after the horror of Port Arthur and the resulting nation-wide outlawing of semi-automatic weapons? Why aren't the cops making a contribution towards disarmament and a less violent society?The recent shootings show poorly trained police resorting to the 'shoot-to-kill' option as the easiest way to end a stand off with an emotionally disturbed person. The death of Roni Levi in broad daylight at Bondi Beach has stirred a public outcry. While the police are already testing new equipment, such as extendable batons, nets and the dangerous capsicum sprays (opposed by Justice Action), as part of a revised strategy to deal with similar situations in the future, they must not be allowed to keep their military style weapons. There are no Die Hard shootouts in NSW, Mr Ryan! Glocks will make NSW a more dangerous place and the sight of a cop with a Glock will make NSW citizens extremely nervous. The police have clearly demonstrated that they need to disarm, not re-arm in this most crude manner.


- END

To the top of page

"The staffing levels for all professions are grossly insufficient. The medical input is seriously limited and the few sessions which each consultant is able to give means that they cannot lead, or be involved in, therapeutic programs, build up supportive teams and develop innovative programs for patients. Inevitably, they have to be prescriptive. They are insufficiently supported and morale is poor. Generally the doctors are critical of the conditions for the patients and for the staffing levels." In terms of services provided Bluglass states that:

"The occupational therapy and rehabilitation input is so limited as to be almost invisible and this is a grossly serious absence to the range of therapeutic inputs which should be present to the provision of a first class service." George Selvanera, the previous Coordinator of Justice Action, wrote in a letter to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission:"These findings represent a bleak picture about the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the National Inquiry into the Human Rights of People with Mental Illness and the commitment of the NSW Government to meet the basic human rights of this seriously disadvantaged group of the community."From his investigation, Professor Bluglass has recommended that individuals suffering from a serious mental illness be cared for in a hospital setting, as opposed to a prison one:

"...in conditions of no more security than is necessary for their safe care, and for the protection of the public." Professor Bluglass praised the facilities available to mentally ill people at the Kestrel Unit of Morisset Hospital, which is fully equipped to care for forensic patients. He suggests the excellent facilities at Morisset be used as a model for future care of mentally ill offenders. While these recommendations could not possibly be implemented immediately, due to the extensive changes it would mean to law and order policies, Bluglass has suggested an interim solution, an independent Mental Health Commission to: "...ensure that basic human rights were protected." This Commission would have the authority to visit otherwise closed institutions and report to the appropriate Ministers.To the credit of the CHS they have already established a working group of professionals and independent persons to determine how they will be able to implement the recommendations made by Bluglass. A report from the working group is due at the end of the month and will be eagerly awaited. Similarly, Minister for Corrective Services, Bob Debus, has shown his willingness to assist in the implementation of the Bluglass Report. Justice Action has written to the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, NSW Health Department and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to make them aware of the issues raised in Bluglass. Further issues of Framed will report on these outcomes.- END
 To the top of page

Mixing Racism and Economics: NSW Juvenile Justice

Peter O'Brien NSW juvenile justice legislation.The recipe works like this: take a racial problem (commonly rural mostly relating to intolerance of Aboriginal youth), stir with loads of community insecurity heightened by media misrepresentations of youth and youth criminality, add fear of crime, reduce public space by processes of privatisation and gentrification, add the usual commercial paraphernalia and let simmer.The Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 squeezes all of these elements into legislation. It allows police to take young people from public areas without having done anything wrong and have them detained in the hands of relatives or 'approved persons'. It also empowers courts to make orders against parents for a child's crime. In introducing the Bill to the NSW Upper House, the Attorney General, Jeff Shaw said that the Act 'recognised the very legitimate concerns of many communities, particularly in rural areas, about juvenile crime'. It does nothing to address them.The Act re-enacts most of the provisions of the previous Liberal Government's Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1994. The Act was trialed in Orange and Gosford and was reviewed in January 1997. The Government's Evaluation Report of the trial said the law was unnecessary, counter productive and based on false assumptions. It recommended in the strongest terms that the law had failed and should be repealed. Literally dozens of reports and investigations by welfare and youth groups, lawyers, academics, and others concluded likewise. When Carr announced that the Government was going to extend the operation of the Act rather than act on the advice of the Evaluation Report, countless community, youth, justice and welfare organisations were dumbfounded.Carr's announcement came as a surprise because the legislation is simply irrational. It will not reduce youth crime and it won't improve parental responsibility. Each of the many reports into this law reveal that it will achieve the opposite to what it is supposed to achieve. The law is discriminatory, it violates international civil liberties, it criminalises normal behaviour, and it increases tension between youth and police. The law treats young people as criminals.The secret to the Act's miracle resurrection is that, like an ever increasing number of mainstream political initiatives, it preys on community fears and prejudices. It is populist, tabloid inspired legislation. During the debate in Parliament, proponents of the legislation talked about anecdotal incidents of youth crime such as 'the bashing of poor old Santa Claus in Bourke... by a mob of 30 children' and cited countless sensationalist articles from newspapers such as the Northern Star and the Daily Telegraph. They could not refer to any analysis, report or inquiry which suggested that this law would solve any of the emotive problems they mentioned. But with fleeting reference they dismissed as 'theoretical', 'platitudes' and 'cliches' the voluminous analyses, reports and inquiries which condemned the law.The anti-intellectual fervour of the debate revealed interesting insights into the Government's law and order agenda. And it clearly spelled out the agitators. The primary political motivation came from conservative rural local councils. Not surprisingly, members of the NSW National Party have been most vocal in their support for the law. Late in 1996, the Local Government and Shires Association threatened to make the issue of increased police powers to deal with youth a political issue in marginal rural areas if the law was not passed.But concerns about 'youth lawlessness' in rural areas are largely superficial. Racial issues propel this legislation. The second reading speech by National Party MLC Doug Moppett from Cooamble is an example. Guarded as his comments may be, his sweeping statements on Aboriginal communities, drinking problems causing ineffective parenting and talk of problems with youth, present the clear impression that the increased police powers are intended to target black youth and families. Another giveaway is that the local governments which have barracked for the Act are all from areas where Aboriginal populations are high - Bourke, Cobar, Broken Hill, Casino, Richmond River, Moree, Lismore, Ballina, Taree and Kyogle - and where the marginalisation of Aboriginal youth has been endemic for decades.Another important factor which also played a major role in the introduction of the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act is society's split-level approach to civil liberties - while people have rights, young people don't. This view reflects the general societal transformation of 'civilians' from human right holders to consumer right holders.This transformation also explains the forceful role that local and regional chambers of commerce play in promoting harsher police powers to deal with young people. Chambers of Commerce are significant agitators for the new back-to-the-old brutal approach to dealing with youth. Their motives are spelled out by the following statement from an Aboriginal youth living in the Western regions of NSW:"There's about 30 of us, mostly Koories. When we hang out in the [entertainment complex], they told me we can't hang out there at night any more because people are too scared to walk in there. He said the police are going to come down and stop us hanging around."(White 1995)And the police do move them on. Small business operators in shopping areas are concerned that young people will assault others or cause damage in the area. But statistics tell us that the possibility of this occurring is low: There is far more risk of being bashed by someone you know than you don't; the prospect of being mugged in a mall or plaza is remote and has not increased in recent times. That a person is more likely to be assaulted by someone they know at home is still as true as it ever was. We also know that young people are more likely to be victims of crime than offenders. Youth crime levels are not increasing. But having police move young people from malls and plazas is sound business sense.Young people, particularly those most frequently harassed by police, are not good consumers. Many live in enduring poverty, relying on the benevolence of adults. They are beyond the age of merchandise ploys and toys and those most harshly dealt with are aged between that of innocence and worker/consumer. Their erratic consumption pattern labels their presence in shopping malls as suspicious. To compound this, media generally presents youth as only criminals, bludgers or (less frequently) prodigies which promote 'dangerous drug dealing delinquent youth' anxieties in others unless they're wearing full school uniform adorned with prefect badge.General levels of community prejudice and fear of crime help perpetuate myths of youth crime waves which make customers in malls or plazas scared. And a scared consumer is only a good one if you're in the security business. The increased number of private security guards in shopping malls and plazas is evidence of this anti-youth phenomena at work. Security is expensive business but the State pays the police.The significant sway that local chambers of commerce have with local government is another key factor in NSW juvenile justice policy and the law and order debate generally. In rural areas particularly, it is true that youth services and facilities are not commonly prioritised. The expense and effort is usually prohibitive and unworthwhile, especially given the near absence of collective, political nor economic power of young people in these areas.Prevalent community attitudes of the sentiment 'I did without when I was a kid' or 'you get nothing until you behave' reinforce the commercial reality that pumping money into youth services yields no immediate economic return. It costs chambers of commerce and local governments nothing to get more police, and it costs them nothing to give police more powers. Problem solved - viola! A social problem becomes a criminal one.Knowledge about youth criminality doesn't come from informed research, academic studies or policy documents. Nor does it come from the direct experience of being a victim of crime. To most, such knowledge is constructed from the reports in daily papers, the chat on talk back radio and the content of police action shows. It is these influences and the associated responses which law and order policies shamelessly exploit as governments, such as that in NSW, promise to get tough on youth crime.The Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 is another tough on crime non-solution. Neatly the Act will fail, and the cry will be 'let's get tougher on crime!'. Communities can again forget their myriad social complexities, inequities and failings and again call to the State for more police intervention. This is now tradition. In the meantime, freedom of assembly and the right to live free of arbitrary detention are liberties which have been denied for youth in the parts of rural NSW where this Act will apply.- END
 To the top of page

My Two Weeks in Mulawa
Sindy Burgess

Not so long ago, I had the misfortune of seeing what it was like on the other side of the prison wall, spending two weeks in Mulawa Women's Prison. Here is what I found.On arrival at Mulawa, all inmates have to go through to a reception room where you get processed. This entails a quantity of paper work. When this is finished you are then given a prison identification number and your photo is taken. This photo is placed on an identification cared, which has to stay with you. You are then strip searched and told to shower and issued: two sets of clothing, two singlets, two underpants, two pairs of shorts, two t-shirts, two pairs of long pants, two pairs of socks, one pair of sand shoes and two nighties. These items of clothing have to be returned, or you will have to pay for them. You also get given a plate, bowl and cup. The property you came in with is put into a safe until you are released. You are not permitted to have any of it, including jewellery. These are all put into the prison safe. The prison takes no responsibility for your belongings.You are then taken to the Annex, a place they call the clinic. You are given an examination by a nurse to check for diabetes and your blood pressure is also taken. You are then taken by an officer to the Induction Centre. The Induction Centre is very similar to a Remand Centre. It consists of sixteen cells, which are in majority two-person cells, known as two out cells.. The exercise yard is 25 foot by 25 foot and has bars as the ceiling. The recreation room is not much bigger. Most of the cells are over crowded. Usually there are three or more inmates in a cell, with mattresses on the floor. After the first couple of days the inmates are taken to an induction meeting. At this meeting, an officer explains the basic laws and procedures of the prison.About the fourth day you are taken to Classification Board, who in turn assesses your security within the prison system. You are only supposed to stay in the Induction Centre for seven days, but due to over crowding, it seems at least thirty women are confined to the Induction Centre until a vacancy becomes available. Apart from over crowding, the general feeling is one of tension and boredom sets in. There are no sporting facilities and no educational activities. There is always confusion with bail calls and the decision is basically made by the officer on duty. Magazines and newspapers are rare. There is no knowledge of official visitors or the existence of other organisations.The buy-up system has now been privatised and the result is that the paper work tends to get misplaced and items are always missing. The processing of money into accounts takes too long. Inmates have to wait until their money has been processed until they are allowed a buy-up. Meals are bland and consist of boiled meat and raw vegies, with fruit a luxury. The only liquid to drink is coffee and tea or water: fruit juice or cordial is available except on buy-ups. The worst problem at night in the cells is mosquitoes and inmates are constantly bitten by these annoying creatures. It made me think about the transmission of Ross River virus. There are inmates who go without medication waiting for the authorisation from doctors. To get a single headache tablet, you have to wait for hours to see a doctor.The communication between officers and inmates was usually done by a telephone on a wall. You would tap on the window and an officer would pick up the telephone on the other side. You were entitled to three telephone calls if you were on remand, and two calls if you were sentenced.You are entitled to two one-hour visits per week. The visitors are briefly searched and they cannot bring anything into the visitor's room. Even though you are locked in your cell for almost 14 hours you are not allowed a television or radio. We were locked up at 7.00pm and let out at 8.00am to start yet again another day.

- END

To the top of page