Justice Action

Emu Plains Prison Visits – Overview

In May 2006, the Department of Corrective Services (DCS) unexpectedly withdrew traditional all-day visits for family and friends visiting the women of Emu Plains Correctional Centre. This policy change has had the greatest affect on children who relied upon that contact with their mothers—children who, by virtue of having an incarcerated parent, are already at significantly higher risk than children of non-incarcerated parents of mental health problems, behavioral and emotional problems, delinquency, and their own eventual incarceration.

In the Budget Estimates hearing on 28 August 2006, Corrective Services was asked detailed questions on the issue, and with their responses, they misled Parliament. DCS falsely claimed that prisoners and their families asked for and supported the changes as being in the best interests of their children. In fact, the opposite is true, and the department attempted to intimidate the mothers out of exposing their lies. On 7 September, in an adjournment speech to Parliament, Mr. Peter Breen MP discussed the increasing number of prisoners in NSW jails, and the staff shortages that have led to the removal of all day visits. In the third year of the campaign to return Emu Plains’ all-day visits, such inconsistency and obfuscation still plagues the debate.

The decision to lessen family contact, including that between children and their mothers, is a destructive one for the women, their families, and the community as a whole. NSW already suffers the highest recidivism rates (45%) in all of Australia, and the Auditor General has recently condemned the state’s Corrective Services policies (5/06). The new restrictions on visits are already straining family and community ties, and will only make it more difficult for female offenders (and their children) to escape the cycle of crime and imprisonment.


Background

Emu Plains Correctional Centre for women is a low security prison near Sydney, NSW. There is a Mothers & Children program housed in the Jacaranda Cottages, which are included as part of the main complex. All women have to be a C2 classification (i.e. “low risk”) to be accepted at Emu Plains. Emu Plains became a women’s prison in 1996, and, until 2006, has always permitted all day visits every weekend and public holiday.

Throughout this 10-year period of all-day visits, women would purposefully try to be classified as low risk and moved to Emu Plains so that they could spend time with their children, family, and friends. This type of transition is considered essential for the well-being of the women as they move towards their eventual release from prison. The vast majority of women in prison are mothers and, therefore, rely heavily on visits to maintain bonds and contact with their children.

During the all-day visits, the local Rotary club consistently sponsored a BBQ lunch for the inmates and their visitors, and the money raised went towards local community projects. This seemed to work well for all parties. Many families and visitors live significant distances away from Emu Plains prison, and under the previous visitation system, they could be confident, upon arrival, of having ample time for a relatively pleasant, unburdened visit.


Changed Policy

The new General Manager of Emu Plains, who arrived late in 2005, posted a notice in May 2006 in the visiting section and elsewhere within the prison. This notice informed the women and their visitors that future visits would change from all-day visits to split-visits. This meant that visits would go from 8.30am to 11.30am, and then break for one hour before re-commencing from 12.30pm to 3.30pm. The reason given for this change was to allow visitors to have lunch. The change was implemented without consulting any prisoners, prisoners’ family or friends, or local support groups. It has had an enormous effect on the women in prison, as well as on their visitors.

The original justification for these policy changes ignores one very important reality: visitors were having lunch—with prisoners. By shutting them out of the facility at lunchtime, some visitors without any means of transport—and into an isolated part of Western Sydney in the middle of the day—it is this new policy that is actually preventing some visitors from having lunch, as there are no facilities within reasonable walking distance from the prison.

The Inmate Development Committee representing the women was told that “the change to visits is a trial to bring this prison into line with other prisons, and no further discussion will be entered into about it.” On the weekend of 29-30 July, visitors who attended Emu Plains prison were informed that in the near future, their visits would have to be pre-booked by phone and limited to two hours.

In addition to the changes in visitation policy, the amount of phone contact that Emu Plains’ women are allowed has also been restricted. The previous time limit was 15 minutes, with a 5-minute ban until another call can be made. Now the phone calls are limited to 6 minutes, with a 30-minute ban between calls. By no measure does this provide sufficient time for the women in prison to engage in the sort of meaningful conversation that is needed to develop and maintain strong ties with family and friends.


Effects of Policy Changes

DCS’ own research demonstrates that strong support networks and family ties are among the most important factors helping to reduce recidivism and keep women from returning to prison. Ignoring or undermining the importance of personal relationships is detrimental to the rehabilitation of female offenders, and risks having negative consequences not only for the women, but also for their children, and for the community at large.

Under the new regime, visitors have to wait in queues of sometimes more than one and a half hours in order to be processed and checked-in to Emu Plains. Booked visits are normal procedure for maximum-security prisons, and there’s simply no apparent reason that the low-risk inmates of Emu Plains—or their loved ones—should be subjected to the same policies. Mandatory pre-booking also means that some visits don’t happen at all, as the sessions fill up or the bookings are not properly arranged.

These changes result in reduced contact between visitors and the women, making the short time available more tense and less satisfying for everyone.


Lies to Parliament/Budget Estimates Hearing

During the Estimates Committee hearing on 28 August 2006, politicians asked Justice Minister Tony Kelly and his three top departmental officers questions about Emu Plains. Assistant Deputy Commissioners Ian McLean and Luke Grant said, while under oath, that “by splitting the full day visits into two three-hour visits, children visiting inmates will be able to spend more time having a proper lunch. That was of concern previous to this change.” They went on to claim that “this was discussed with the Inmate Development Committee…on at least two occasions before the implementation of the split visits on 21 May 2006,” and “no objections were raised by the Inmate Development Committee or inmates.” Finally, he concluded that the “consensus of that committee was that this [new system] was a better system,” and “through the [Inmate Development Committee], it has been proven by the follow-up and the monitoring of it to date that it is certainly a lot better.”

Not only do these claims fly in the face of reason, but their blatant untruth is also well documented. Women at Emu Plains, as well as their visitors, have certainly complained, but Emu Plains’ management, in their efforts to silence dissent, have in turn ignored reported concerns and responded to them with tactics of intimidation.


Intimidation of Prisoners and Families

Since the implementation of the split-visits in May 2006, many visitors have written to the General Manager complaining of the negative effects both on the visitors and the women in prison. Some visitors and prisoners have also complained orally to officers at the prison. The written complaints have gone unanswered, and the oral complaints have reportedly been met with responses such as “Keep complaining and it will only get worse.” Families and prisoners at Emu Plains want to voice their opposition to the changes, but they have been bullied into silence.

Concerned inmates and their families eventually came to Justice Action for assistance. Justice Action gathered facts and opinions, and attempted to confirm negative claims. An information leaflet was prepared for feedback to the Minister and for presentation to Parliament.

On 5 August, a member of Justice Action visited a prisoner at Emu Plains. He spoke with other visitors and gave them copies of the leaflet. Five days later, he was informed that that he would be banned from the prison for two years for “fomenting disharmony and conflict,” “causing dissension” and “confrontation,” “inciting visitors by the misleading, inaccurate and uninformed handouts,” and ignoring the fact that he had “been warned on numerous occasions.” When he asked when the supposed previous warnings had occurred, and how exactly his document was inaccurate, he was told that a “semantic discussion” would not be entered into.


The Prisoner Consultation

On 25 August, Justice Action sent a letter to each of the 177 Emu Plains prisoners, addressed by name and sent by registered post, suggesting that they and their visitors make their views known to the Minister, either directly or anonymously through Justice Action.

In response to these letters, women inside supplied the following report: “During the week, all the girls in the compound were asked to go to Visits as the GM had an announcement. She walked out with a big garbage bag of letters and said ‘These letters are from JA—as you can see, I have not opened them. There is a letter addressed to each of you. This has disturbed me quite a bit as I have come from meetings with the Ombudsman and Official Visitors of this jail, enquiring as to who has complained and why. After going through every phone call made to the Ombudsman, I was quite content that these complaints about visits were coming more from the outside and not you girls. I would be very disappointed if any of you were to complain!’”

Women at Emu Plains have been forced to break the law to ensure that the outside community and decision makers know their position. They have smuggled out letters, as they knew that their complaints risked negatively affecting their personal situations inside.


Sample Prisoners’ Response

One of the numerous letters received by Justice Action says:

“To Justice Action,

Firstly, I would like to thank-you for the concern you have shown and the support we inmates are receiving from your organization.

I have been an inmate here for nearly […] years and have previously been in the system before. EPCC was a very sympathetic and understanding institution where inmates were permitted to have family contact in a pleasant and casual environment. Visits were open all day on the weekends and there were no stipulations on the time factor.

When my family came … we had no concern of our visit finishing—we were comfortable knowing that we had plenty of time to relax and enjoy each others company.

We were able to purchase lunch and have a meal together as a family. This created such normality and my [visitor] was happy that she could buy me something, even if it was just a steak sandwich or sausage sandwich.

Spending time with my children, playing in the playground gave me strength for another week and calmed them considerably as they saw that I was coping and surviving behind bars.

Having broken visits has created a lot of unnecessary anger and upset. After visiting me for an hour in the morning session, my kids become very upset that they have to leave so quickly. Then they have to go through the lengthy process of re-entering again and wasting another hour waiting in line to enter again.

I have been listening to the complaints of other inmates where old parents catch public transport. It takes them ages to arrive at EPCC and then they end up waiting due to the congestion at reception. Before they know it the session is over so they have to walk to the main road, sit and wait until the afternoon session begins. They don’t have transport to drive to a take-away and buy some lunch, so they go without. Then again the whole process of re-registering and waiting up to one and a half hours to enter.

Why change a system that has been successful for many years? Why the need to introduce a system that goes against all human reasoning? Why put our families through more stress and unhappiness, when visits should be a happy, pleasant, stress-free time?

Haven’t our families suffered enough? They end up doing our jail with us. Every time they walk out those doors and leave us behind they suffer quietly. Why does the system need to inflict more pain on them and minimise our visiting time with our family and friends?

Please help us to re-introduce our full day visits with an opportunity to have lunch with our loved one.”


Sample Community/Politicians’ Responses

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 7 September 2006 – PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES PRISON POPULATION.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.19 p.m.]: “I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the difficulties faced by prisoners in New South Wales as a result of staff shortages and inadequate funding. New South Wales has an incarceration rate per head of population double that of Victoria because we lack the imagination to devise diversionary programs and the political will to help our prisoners recover their lives. The prison population has been increasing at around 400 prisoners annually, which means that we need to build one gaol each year just to keep pace with the increase. Needless to say, we cannot afford capital works on such a scale so we make cuts elsewhere in order to cope with the expanding prison population. Inevitably, it is the prisoners who bear the brunt of cuts, with more lockdowns, fewer education and training programs, and tighter restrictions on out-of-cell activities.

Last month I received a letter from a prisoner at Lithgow Correctional Complex who informed me that he had been in lockdown for more than 100 days in the past three years. Under the sensible and compassionate arrangements that exist in Victoria, for example, this modern form of solitary confinement would entitle the prisoner to one year's remission on his sentence. In New South Wales, however, remissions for government-inflicted cruelty are a thing of the past. It is hardly surprising that we are failing to rehabilitate our prisoners and that more than half of them re-offend and return to prison within five years. The cost to the community—particularly to the victims of crime—of our lack of care towards prisoners is a matter of great concern. As well as the obvious accommodation cost for prisoners—which is now running at around $200,0000 per year for some prisoners—the cost of re-offending is incalculable for the victims of crime.

Last year the Department of Corrective Services introduced a further cost-cutting measure by splitting all-day visits into morning and afternoon visits. The change is designed to suit the convenience of staff rosters and allows prison management between one and two hours in the middle of the day to make up for staff shortages. One direct consequence of this new roster arrangement has been an increase in lockdowns. Another consequence is more hurdles and hoops for families and friends of visitors. At Emu Plains prison, for example, the reason given for the policy change to provide an extra hour in the middle of the day for staff shortages was "to allow visitors to have lunch". Of course, this statement is arrant nonsense, since prior to the change prisoners had lunch with their visitors. Now the visitors are put out of the prison at lunchtime, and prisoners and visitors have separate arrangements for lunch.

The department labeled the changes at Emu Plains a trial but, like the so-called trial for visitors terminating their visits in order to go to the toilet, the new arrangement for visitors to lunch outside the prison is better described as a tribulation than a trial. I have never seen the results of any Corrective Services trial—but that is another story. The bottom line is that the department has withdrawn traditional all-day visits for families and friends of the women inmates at Emu Plains. Often the visitors are the women's children and they simply go home during the lunch break, thus denying mothers important contact with their families.

Officers of the department were asked questions about the visiting arrangements at Emu Plains during a budget estimates hearing on 28 August. A casual reader of the transcript of these proceedings might think the officers misled Parliament when they said the prisoners and their families asked for and supported the changes to visiting arrangements at Emu Plains. The officers also said the new arrangements were in the best interests of the children. The local Rotary club traditionally put on a barbeque lunch for the 177 women inmates and their family visitors, so it is difficult to know how the children would benefit from terminating such an arrangement. A number of members of this House have complained to the Minister for Justice about the new visiting arrangements at Emu Plains prison. In a letter, the President of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Meredith Burgmann, said:

“We fought for many years for this type of facility [for women inmates] … it would be a sad situation if the children stop visiting regularly and their families suffered as a direct result of these changes.”

Members in the other place who have voiced their concerns include Clover Moore, Paul Lynch, Linda Burney, Noreen Hay and the Minister for Women, Sandra Nori. Justice Action wrote to the Minister on 30 August suggesting the establishment of a community panel to oversee the reinstatement of full-day visits at Emu Plains. This community panel could give inmates an opportunity to have some input into the arrangements. I urge the Minister to respond to the community action that is mounting in response to the situation at Emu Plains and to support the women inmates by taking appropriate action to restore all-day visits.”


This is what some other members of parliament have had to say about the changes:

Clover Moore MP: “85% of women prisoners are mothers, and the majority have primary responsibility for raising children before incarceration”; “The strength of the mother-child bond is the most significant indicator of recidivism for females with children.”

Paul Lynch MP: “[This change] is allegedly on the basis that the visitors need to be allowed to have lunch. Such a rationale is of course preposterous.”

Some other individual and organizations who have written to the Minister are: Sandra Nori Minister for Women, Linda Burney MP, Noreen Hay MP, YWCA Canberra, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, Women’s Legal Centre (ACT), Dr Deb Foskey MLA.


Request to Minister

August 2006: Justice action asked the Minister to immediately reinstate all-day visits and to set up a community panel for further discussion of the issue:

“In light of those comments to Parliament we propose a community panel comprising a politician, a member of the Commissioner's Women Advisory Committee (WAC), a representative of Justice Action and yourself meet with the members of the Inmate Development Committee (IDC) to clarify the position of prisoners at Emu Plains and to ensure Parliament has not been misled. It is important that prisoners are allowed the opportunity to clarify their position as your officers claim these changes to visits have occurred because the women at Emu Plains want them.

Prisoners and their families have expressed grave concerns that they will be punished by removal of their ‘C’ classification and access to their children if they object to this attack on their existing conditions. The meeting with the IDC should be sensitive to this concern.

The community panel could also work with the women prisoners, their families and staff to ensure the visiting system is the best possible. This would bring benefit to the wider community, through less women coming back to jail due to the improved family and community relationships that are established.”

The campaign is still in progress.




Emu Plains Update 11/06

The intimidation of community support has continued, along with the unexplained removal of Breakout, Justice Action’s community service affiliate, as an approved agency for the fulfillment of community service orders. These actions follow DCS’ banning a Justice Action representative from their premises as well as the Women’s Advisory Committee’s removal of their only formerly incarcerated member after both individuals raised concerns regarding Emu Plains’ changed visitation policies.

DCS has made a number of significant concessions. First, they admitted that the removal of the all-day visits was imposed on prisoners and visitors, rather than implemented at their suggestion and with their approval, as was originally claimed before the Estimates Committee. As opposed to DCS’ assertion that prisoners believe the new policy to be “certainly a lot better” than the old, many are in fact totally against the loss of their all-day visits, but have been intimidated out of protesting. It is for this reason that these vulnerable women and their families have appealed for outside support.

DCS has also conceded that visits are "very, very important" to the maintenance of family relationships, and also that the strength of these relationships is a factor in the reduction of recidivism. It is to be hoped that this knowledge leads to the reinstatement of former visitation policies.

DCS admitted that their attempt to involve visitors in a pre-policy change survey was a complete failure. They surveyed 1,075 visitors and received only 16 responses, with only one respondent prepared to participate in a Visits Committee for further discussion on the issue. Of course, many visitors face adverse situations themselves; some live long distances from Emu Plains, and many are caregivers. It’s unreasonable to expect that a high number of visitors would have the time or the resources to participate in such a committee, especially without any strong evidence that their opinions would really be heard and valued. Following the intimidation by DCS officials, numerous individuals have advised Justice Action that their complaints only seem to be met with further restrictions, so they stay silent. For these reasons and others, it must be assumed that factors beyond simple disinterest contributed to the dismal failure of the survey.

DCS still intends to reduce visits to a level that is currently considered standard within maximum-security facilities: 2-hour booked visits. Implementation is planned for early December, and has only been delayed thus far due to staffing issues.

To further complicate the situation, DCS has informed Parliament of a new initiative to introduce all-day visits on a weekday instead of the weekend. Of course, weekdays are a time when many caregivers are at work, the family car is unavailable, and other such obstacles. DCS also admitted that they had not considered the implications for school-aged children, who would have class during the week. They have also failed to negotiate who it would be that would need to bring some of the children in care, rather than the extended family members who were often available to do so on weekends. DCS doesn’t know how many children currently visit on the weekends, so they cannot predict what effect these changes would have on the (currently) up to 180 visits a day. To present this initiative to Parliament as a fresh response to visitation problems is simply another example of dishonesty. In fact, the opportunity for all-day weekday visits has existed for some time, but is generally unpopular for the reasons listed above. In practice, it is unworkable for most families. It means that the child is dropped off in the morning and that the caregiver must leave for four hours—in this outer-metro region, sometimes without private transportation, sometimes far away from their own homes—before returning to pick up the child.


What now?

It is time to accept that DCS is actually encouraging crime with its horrendous mismanagement, open dishonesty, and lack of goodwill towards the concerned community.

We will work with other organizations and supportive politicians to highlight this issue in the lead up to and during the upcoming election campaign, to demonstrate that this government has lost control of the Department of Corrective Services. We will demand from government a reversal of the decision to ban all-day visits, and we will advocate for the creation of strategies to lower the recidivism rate by providing services to support prisoners and their families upon release from custody.



Emu Plains Update 2/07

Justification for Changes in Visitation Policies – Misinformation and Inconsistency

At the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 (Justice, Juvenile Justice) meeting held on 17 November 2006, Greens MP Ms. Lee Rhiannon raised the concern that the Minister of Justice’s representative Mr. McLean provided misleading information during the 28 August 2006 inquiry. Essentially, Mr. McLean had claimed that Emu Plains inmates requested the changes in visitation policies, and were, furthermore, involved in the decision and implementation process. In reality, prisoners at Emu Plains were merely informed of the changes by the Inmate Development Committee (IDC). As Ms. Rhiannon notes, being informed of these changes does not equate to prisoners’ actually giving their approval. Instead, thanks to recent threats from the general manager of Emu Plains, prisoners have been bullied and intimidated into stifling their complaints, and have been forced to make covert appeals for outside support. The desperate measures that women have been forced to take in order to let their opinions be known highlights just how problematic the facility’s complaint-receiving and processing mechanisms actually are.

One justification given for the removal of all-day visits was that the policy change would allow visitors, most notably children, time to obtain a proper lunch. However, in a meeting on 25 October 2006, one of the major reasons given for the change was the increase in contraband found at Emu Plains. Clearly, there are inconsistencies in the Department of Corrective Services’ (DCS) position that must be addressed. The women, their families, and the community all have the right to understand the motivation behind any policy change that affects them as directly as these have.


Troubles with the New Booked Visits Procedure

The Department of Corrective Services maintains that the change from all-day visits to split-visits ensures a more orderly process, reducing check-in time and inconvenience for all parties. Of course, this sounds reasonable, but Justice Action’s consultation with inmates and visitors suggests that the exact opposite has been accomplished.

Visitors can only stay for a two-hour period, so long queues cut into the valuable time that family and friends are permitted to spend with inmates. Furthermore, visitors only have three three-hour windows per week (Tuesday through Thursday) to actually schedule their visits, which presents obstacles to those who work during the week or have prior commitments to fulfill during this limited time span. Glitches in the computer system, coupled with resistance from staff members to answer the phone and take bookings, mean that even when individuals do make a booking, they still risk being turned away upon arrival. Family and friends’ visits are terminated if they have to use the toilet at any time, and often, visitors choose to return home during the break rather than standing outside waiting to be re-processed. Prisoners on parole are only permitted one one-hour boxed visit with anyone outside of their immediate family. All of this runs counter to Corrective Services’ claim that maintaining contact with visitors is top priority, and an important factor in reducing recidivism.

Another significant issue at Emu Plains is the proposed initiative by Parliament to bring in all-day visits for children during the week instead of on the weekend, as they existed previously. This proposal should raise obvious concerns: many caregivers—those who provide transportation for the children—must work during the week, whilst others may not have access to private transportation given that other family members may be using the car for work. School-aged children will be forced between missing class or missing a visit with their mother. And because this day will be limited to visits from children, caregivers will have to pass four hours between drop-off and pick-up—a challenge for anyone relying on public transportation or traveling from some distance away, especially given the limited facilities near the prison. The scheme fails to take into consideration just how important it is for mothers to visit with their children whilst not disrupting the lives of family and friends any more than necessary. No mother should be made to choose between bonding with her child and placing undue burden on her other loved ones, nor should any mother and child miss out on visitation time because of such avoidable obstacles.

Under Emu Plains’ new system, it is clear that there will be detrimental effects on the maintenance of family relationships. Close contact between inmates and their families has been proven to reduce recidivism upon prisoner release. Dr. Louise Newman, Director of the NSW Institute of Psychiatry, has expressed concerns to Minister Tony Kelly regarding the recent changes to visiting arrangements at Emu Plains. She highlighted the many benefits of all-day visits for both inmates and visitors, and emphasized that restrictions on mother and child contact fails to benefit a mother’s mental and emotional health as well a child’s development, in general.


Current State of the Campaign

Despite the overwhelmingly negative impact that split and booked visits have on prisoners and visitors alike, all-day visits have not yet been reinstated at Emu Plains. Justice Action has contacted Belinda Neal, Chief of Staff, in regards to setting up a meeting with the Minister of Justice. Despite these attempts, the Minister has so far refused to enter into any dialogue with Justice Action. Ms. Neal justifies the decision on the basis that visitors “have not raised any complaints on behalf of inmates or their families with either the Acting Commissioner or the Minister about any aspect of the visiting regime now in place at Emu Plains,” and asserts that the Minister “is satisfied that the issue has been carefully managed by the department, and there is no justification for him to intervene in the outcome of the independent, operational decision-making processes.”


DCS Removes Breakout, Justice Action’s Community Service Branch, from the Community Service Orders (CSO) Scheme

On 20 November 2006, DCS revealed that they would no longer allow probation and parole clients to fulfill their community service orders (CSO) with Breakout, a community organization affiliated with Justice Action. Breakout was launched in 1984 as an employment program for those recently released from prison, and it, along with its strong mentoring program, has been hailed as one of the leading CSO agencies. DCS asserted that Breakout is “no longer an approved CSO worksite,” but failed to provide any clear rationale for this decision, or to answer the organization’s subsequent requests for information. Worth note is the fact that the original letter communicating Breakout’s loss of approval was signed by the same DCS staff member who is currently dealing with the Emu Plains visiting issue. Nearly 25 years of successful, respectable community service has been brought to a halt, and Justice Action is being penalized for lending its voice to the women at Emu Plains and to prisoners’ rights in general. Transparent mechanisms must be implemented to ensure that justice is met.




Emu Plains Update – 10/07

With the removal of traditional all day visits by children to their mothers at the Emu Plains Prison, DCS has systematically begun the breakdown of families and an increase in re-offending. Even Assistant Director of DCS, Mr. L. Grant acknowledges this:

“We believe that people who maintain contact with their families are less likely to re-offend than people who do not. And we recognize that the types of relationships that people have with their families are very, very important, particularly relationships with children. People, when they come into custody, are dislocated from their families and from their social support network. One of the challenges for people when they return to the community after they have been in custody is to get those relationships operating again and, therefore, the visits process is a very, very important part of that.” (General Purpose Standing Committee No 3, 17-11-06 at 9)

This rhetoric, however, is completely opposite with the actions taken at Emu Plains. Once, the facility had a progressive Mother and Children program, which fostered bonding between imprisoned mothers and their children. Now, this program has all but ceased due to changes in the visit protocol. Instead of offering all day visits with time for a lunch provided by the local Rotary, the Emu plains officials have changed to split visits—two two-hour blocks—which need to be booked in advance.

Claiming to be working for the benefit of the children, Corrective Services officials changed the policy without regard for or consultation with Emu Plains prisoners or their families. The prisoners were told that these actions were being taken in order to allow time for their loved ones to enjoy a proper lunch. In reality, Rotary had consistently provided BBQ lunches for the prisoners and their visitors—something that was stopped once the new policy came into effect. Furthermore, the Emu Plains facility is not within reasonable walking distance from any take-aways or restaurants.


Actual Practice (2007)

The idea of an advanced booking system works…in theory. However, if one factors in the strict, unsuitable booking times and the possibility of employees who refuse to answer the phone during these limited hours, the problems begin to become clear. Bookings for the weekend visits to Emu Plains can only be made on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 2-5pm and Wednesdays 3:30-6:30pm—times which conflict with working hours, commute times, and familial commitments. Even when family members are able to make time for the phone call, there have been reports of phones not being answered and of bookings being lost in the system. There have been reports, contested by the DCS, of Emu Plains employees who feel that taking bookings should not be a part of their job description, and so refuse to answer the phones. These spiteful actions are more than detrimental to the fostering of familial relationships for which the facility was once renowned.

If a family does manage to jump through all of the necessary hoops and avoid the many bureaucratic potholes, and they are actually able to book a visit to see their loved one at Emu Plains, they’re met with still more hurdles, such as the lengthy queues required to gain entry to the facility. Visitors are only allotted two hours per visit, most of which may be spent waiting in queues to be processed. Imagine the levels of disappointment and frustration that visitors must experience, knowing that the majority of their day was spent wasted, waiting in queues for check-in as opposed to spent with their loved ones.