Comments on: SA talks tough on prisons; contravenes UN Convention

By: Julie James

Julie James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Atkinson and Foley are, like their leader, rallying around the law and order band wagon. However the impact is that it is one more instance of bullying. The strong man chest beating is wearing thin with a lot of South Australians seeing that the tough approach is crossing from the law and order arena into the industrial arena. The Workcover changes are very unpopular because of their unfairness and Foley was stupid enough to say that the head of Unions SA was irrelevant a couple of Sundays ago. The industrial scene has been very rocky ever since. The Rann government is also bullying the country people by closing their hospitals.

The population is getting very sick of the bully boy tactics and the fact that so many ordinary people are being demonised through restrictive laws.

The Liberals will have a chance in the next election if they understand that it is the bullying that is alienating voters. So far however they have only joined in. Foley bragged the other night that there were hundreds more prisoners in jail than when they came to power and Martin Hamilton Smith let him get off without asking about rehabilitiation or safety etc

People may not care too much about prisoners which is what Foley and Atkinson are banking on. They do however dislike the attitude being displayed - an arrogant and uncaring stance. This is likely to have more impact in the long term than a prisoner suing. After all the government would just pass a law exonerating them from any legal action if anyone tried.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As a South Australian taxpayer, I’d prefer to see prisons doing a better job of rehabilitating crims rather than just being used to punish them, but I don’t expect any particular government to actually do this any time soon. State elections here are law-and-order auctions every time. That said, it seems to me that all governments regard their ‘obligations’ under UN conventions as being pretty thin. Has there ever been a case of a prisoner successfully suing a government as Greg Barns suggests here based on these UN conventions? It’s like the silly article by Peter Faris QC in Crikey when Rudd made the apology to the stolen generations, referring to the possibility of legal claims based on UN conventions regarding the rights of children. Goverments regard UN conventions as feelgood piles of nothing, I think. Lawyers like Barns and Faris (who normally disagree on so much in these pages) see them as opportunities to sue people, but I don’t think these conventions have the standing lawyers wish they did.

By: Sponge Boy

Sponge Boy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Greg barns obviously has no understanding of law. You only have a claim for breach of duty of care if you suffer a loss resulting from that breach. And UN Conventions are not binding unless they have been ratified AND incorporated into Australian law; the worst that happens is the UN holds a hearing (at which Australia respectfully participates), the UN issues an “Adverse View” and Australia politely responds to it.