Search

Australia has recently ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) in order to improve the oversight of Australia's prisons and detention centres, following major human rights violations exposed in them in 2016. Ratification offers an opportunity to appraise the effectiveness of monitoring and oversight in Australia, and the limitations of human rights protections in the Australian context. Australia's prisons and youth detention centres are to be monitored by a network of independent inspecting bodies, which are likely to include existing Ombudsman and human rights bodies. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has the task of coordinating the new inspection bodies. This article reviews the existing protections of rights in Australia and considers the implications of ratification of OPCAT. The article concludes that implementation will require consideration of the effectiveness of the current bodies monitoring prisons and youth detention and their capacity to take on the role of preventing human rights violations, including their independence from government, as the states and territories decide on the establishment of their National Preventive Mechanisms. Implementation will also require an understanding of Australia's historical ambivalence towards international human rights engagement and the impact of its federated system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments of the works of legal activist Tim McCoy in Community Legal Centres, on topics like Tim's creation of the Hobart Legal Service; his campaign to stop the Australian government's identity card scheme to protect privacy rights; and his opposition to the expansion of police powers.

The prison population in most jurisdictions is escalating. As many prisoners are also parents, more children will inevitably be affected by the experience of having a parent incarcerated. Police and the lower courts are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system and make urgent and vital decisions about arrest, remand and sentencing which have critical consequences for the children of those arrested, remanded and sentenced. To better understand how these children are responded to by this adult system, this paper draws on data collected from a purposive sample (N = 16) of Victorian magistrates, legal representatives and police, as part of a broader ARC funded study. Findings indicate that the consideration of these children by police and magistrates is largely ad hoc and depends on good will and the exercise of discretion. The balancing of justice issues and the interests of children is also complex and currently under-researched and under-informed. The authors argue that until the agencies dealing with adults incorporate child-focused practices, children, who have a primary carer in prison, will continue to be disadvantaged by a system which considers them only as collateral damage in the exercise of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines two issues: the author's recent research on the capacity of prisons to incorporate human rights considerations into their routine management; and the methods employed in this research in prisons in two Australian jurisdictions. The first element examines the impact of formal human rights instruments on prison management and on the lived experiences of prisoners, and the potential for the practical application of human rights obligations in this environment. The second gives closer analysis to the specific use of qualitative methodologies in carrying out this research, and the potential implications of methodology for subsequent acceptance of research findings by governments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]