PRISON ADMINISTRATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 November 1943, Page 8

PRISON ADMINISTRATION

CONTROVERSY CONTINUED WELLINGTON, Nov. 16 In a statement to-day Sir Hubert Ostler commented on remarks made by Dr. D. G. McMillan, a former Minister in charge of prisons, in reply to Sir Hubert Ostler’s statement ol SatUl “lt y 'was not my intention to enter into a personal controversy with pi. McMillan, but only in the public interest to state the facts Sir Hubei t Ostler said. “Dr. McMillans hist reply is that as the Prisons Board has no administrative authority, I could have no knowledge of prison administration. I venture to say that 1. have seen a great deal more ol the inside of prisons during my four years as chairman of the board than ever Dr. McMillan did during his short term as Minister. He does not appeal to be aware that, in addition to the reviewing of sentences, one of the statutory functions of the Prisons Boa tcl m to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the Crimes Act, and other relevant statutes in relation to prisoners. and in this connection the board is interested in all phases ol administration. ■‘Dr. McMillan complains of the charge I niade that his adrninistia~ lion "was responsible for the Mount Fdcn trouble, and lie is at pains to explain that that brutal assault was the result of non-observance ol prison ■,ulc;’.. In excusing himself in Parliament he made- a similar statement, alleging that ‘the - incident would not have happened if warders had followed the routine’ (see Hansard, 1941). When Mr. Mason, in reply, quoted from Dr. McMillan’s own public 'statement, as Minister at the time, ‘the customary routine had been observed, and there was no kick ol care and vigilance on the part ol the stall, Dr. McMillan interjected that if he could eet access to the tile he could establish his point. When chairman of the Prisons Board I had access to files, and I am able to state positively that the files reveal nothing that would suggest that there had been any failure on the part ol warders in the observance of the prescribed routine. The files do reveal, however, that there was, ‘a stale ol unrest" in the prison which was attributed by the controlling officers to the undermining of discipline through the actions of the Minister.

MINISTER’S ‘STRANGE CONDUCT’

“Mount Eden was not the only prison where there was trouble at the time. There were also criminal assaults on warders at Invercargill and Paparua, and serious acts of insubordination in other prisons. These were attributed by the officials entirely to Dr. McMillan's strange conduct. He went to various prisons, accompanied only by a stenographer, and interviewed prisoners in private. What took place at these interviews is not known, but it is known that immediately afterwards many of the prisoners became insubordinate. The prison staff in several gaols had much difficulty in enforcing discipline. I do not suggest that Dr. McMillan intended to cause any such trouble by his actions, but he ought to have had enough good sense to know that that method of trying to arrive at the truth was mischievous and dangerous.

“It will be noted that Dr. McMillan has somewhat shilled his ground. His main statement made at Dunedin was that our Borstal Institutions were purely institutions for the manufacture of criminals. When met with the statistics, showing that 80 per cent, of the inmates never come back, he remains silent. The public can draw its own conclusions. He now admits that psychiatrists are used, but says they are not used sufficiently. That statement shows ignorance of the true position on his part. He has probably never perused the Prisons Board file. If he had, he would have known that in every case where there was the slightest suggestion of impaired mentality, or where specialist guidance in the matter of treatment might be helpful, the services of psychiatrists are procured from the fine staff of alienists in the Mental Hospitals’Department. “1 stated that practically all prisons have a common room, Tn every prison erected during the last two decades special provision has been made for this, and there is a common room also in every prison camp. It is quite true that at Mount Eden there is no common room, but there is a schoolroom and a chapel, and both these are used foi’ the purpose of cinema entertainments, concerts, lectures etc. Dr. McMillan states that because I made no special mention of the fact that there is no common room at Mount Eden it was therefore not surprising that I did not recall any changes in prison administration made bv him. I did not claim that the

statement I made of the more or less trivial reforms he had inaugurated (11 indeed they could be so caffed) was exhaustive, but I am confident that he cannot point to one other reform that was introduced during his teim of office.” DR. McMILLAN’S STATEMENT DUNEDIN, November 17. A lurther reply to Sir Hubeit Ostler's criticism of his statement on the subject of prison reform was made to-night by Dr. McMillan “Sir Hubert Ostler’s deductions that I was responsible lor the Mount Eden episode are so fantastic, Dr. McMillan said, “that it is not surprising that he has had to give them a semblance of reality by statements quite contrary to fact. His statement that I ‘went to various prisons accompanied by only a stenogiaphei sounds all right, and gives his story the right atmosphere, but the plain fact is that it is completely untrue. Similarly, his lifting of my 1940 statement out of its context and back ground is as misleading as was his reference to my use of the word ‘Mr.’ in reference to a prisoner m a letter to a member of Parliament. My statement in 1940 was made in reply to suggestions that the escape was made possible by changes I had made in orison routine. I pointed out, as in my' last reply to him, that the routine followed al the time of the escape was the same as had been followed for the last 20 years, and in following usage the warders could not. be accused of lacking care; but the fact remains that it _ was not the routine originally laid down, which would, had "it been followed out, have prevented the escape. I repeat that Sir Hubert Ostler’s effort to blame me for the outbreak is unworthy of him. These sporadic bursts of prison trouble occur in prisons in al! countries at times, for example the lust riot at Dartmoor, and prison reform, provided it does not involve lack of vigilance, is the least potent cause ofcliscontent. “In his report on the Mount Eden episode, the Controller-General of Prisons said the-break was a sporadichappening, an ever-present contingency in a gaol such as Mount Eden. In reference to those concerned, the Inspector of Prisons said (I will use letters in place of the prisoners’ names) A was a persistent escapee from a mental hospital, B has escaped many times (1 wonder what Minister or what reforms Sir Hubert Ostler blamed on these occasions); and C and D are a type prepared to go to any length to secure their liberty. These reports fit in badly with Sir Hubert Ostler’s contention that the episode was due to my administration, and his deduction is even more inexcusable, for. as he says, he had access to these reports and files. USE OF PSYCHIATRISTS “There is room for difference of opinion on the methods of penal reform, but it is a pity that the discussion should be clouded with misrepresentation. Again, I did not say that the services of psychiatrists were never availed of. I said that they were not used sufficiently, and details of the case I quoted (one of many) would prove this to any but the most heavily blinkered.

“So, too, with the common rooms and the uses to which they could be put. It is useless for me to enter into a long-range discussion with Sir Hubert Ostler on what he imagines I said at a meeting in Dunedin, but which, in point of fact, I did not say. Suffice it to say that in his report to me the superintendent of Mount Eden said: ‘There is no common room at this institution which might be utilised for recreation purposes,’ and the Controller-General- said: ‘At Mount Eden, apart from the school and church, which would be unsuitable for the purpose, there is no common room,’ and similarly, in other prisons, rooms Sir Hubert Ostler would call common rooms are completely unsuitable for recreational purposes.

“One familiar with the dates of construction of the major prisons,” Dr. McMillan concluded, “cannot but be amused by Sir Hubert Ostler’s statement that in every prison erected since 1920 special provision has been made for a common room,''