'Rotten' Ron Woodham turns up the screws

Matthew Moore and Malcolm Knox | SMH | December 6, 2008

Hard time ... Ron Woodham faces the press after an escape from Long Bay jail in 1996.
Photo: Sam Rutherford

RON WOODHAM has never shied away from a fight and, despite his age and his failing health, he showed in his stoush with Bassam Hamzy this week he is not about to change.

Hamzy, a convicted murderer, is suing Woodham for putting him in isolation in Lithgow Jail for allegedly planning an escape attempt from Goulburn Jail. So when police and prison staff suspected Hamzy was using a mobile phone allegedly to run a multi-million dollar drug ring from his cell in Lithgow, the Commissioner of NSW Corrective Services could not resist the chance to swipe back.

"I've got a message for this particular individual," he said after his staff released video footage of a mobile phone apparently being slipped into a cell. "If he thinks he has been isolated before and complained about it, wait till he sees what he's got tomorrow."

It is vintage Woodham. For decades he has been attacked by all sides of politics, criticised by staff and by those attempting reform in prisons. He has been investigated repeatedly by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and always cleared. Yet his grip on the top job in the country's biggest prison system has rarely looked more secure.

For decades he has worn the name of "rotten", but it is his mud-repelling Teflon skin that better characterises his reign. The only NSW prison officer ever to make it to the top job, Woodham joined Corrective Services in 1965 and in the 43 years since he has honed skills acquired in an environment where survival is prized above all.

No other public servant has successfully weathered such a steady stream of allegations over such a long period. The fact Woodham is still there is because he knows running jails is different from running trains or hospitals where clients complain when services fall short. His clients seldom complain and, if they do, he knows how to fight back.

He builds networks that have helped ensure his survival.

As he told John Hatzistergos at a farewell dinner he threw in 2005 when the prisons minister ended his first stint in the portfolio: "My job was to protect your back."

Hatzistergos had an almost identical recollection of how their relationship works. "I do recall the first day Ron Woodham came into my office. He said to me, 'My job is to see that at the end of your term you are bruised, not battered'."

Unlike many of his limping cabinet colleagues, Hatzistergos finished his stint as minister for jails with barely a mark on him, a marked contrast to the pounding predecessors have suffered over the years when riots and bashings and escapes dominated headlines.

He is 20 months into his second stint in the portfolio, and it is proving to be even more of a walk in the park, with barely an issue he has been compelled to address.

Hatzistergos knows the quiet life he enjoys is thanks to the all-powerful man at the top.

"Anyone can run Corrective Services when Ron Woodham is in charge," he said.

"Panic" by David Marr: on John Hatzistergos

David Marr | SMH | 17 April 2008 

That this is the last civilised nation not to guarantee its citizens' rights counts for nothing. We don't have foot and mouth disease or video games for grown-ups. So what's to stop us quarantining Australia against bills and charters of rights?

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has been thundering against them lately in the best traditions of NSW Labor. Bob Carr was one of the wittiest and most determined opponents of handing out rights we could enforce in court. It's something one-party states never willingly allow.

"We do not live in a perfect society and never will," Hatzistergos solemnly informed the Sydney Institute last week. "There may well be laws perceived by some to be unjust in our community. It is however wrong to suggest that they can be remedied by enacting charters with wide-ranging values and all will be well."

If only our grim-faced Attorney-General had been around in 1791 to tug James Madison's sleeve and stop him making the historic mistake of presenting the US Congress with constitutional amendments guaranteeing free speech and a free press; the freedom to assemble and the freedom to worship; the assurance that life and liberty will only ever be infringed by due process of law - and, alas, the right to bear arms.

Two-and-a-bit centuries later in Australia, the courts are all but powerless to prevent these rights being legislated away. And a good thing too, says Hatzistergos: "Transforming social and political questions into legal ones … forces the courts to start making decisions … for which they do not have democratic legitimacy."

That's American talk. America gave the world the great model of entrenched rights and lately America has bred mighty rhetoric attacking the courts as undemocratic for protecting them.

The wisdom of experience? Yes and no. Hatzistergos and his tribe are mouthing the words of those sore losers whose democratic sensibilities are offended by the secular, decent revolution pulled off by the US Supreme Court in the last half century that began in 1954 with Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, ending racial segregation of schools.

John Hatzistergos and the Bail Act

In the week the NSW Law Reform Commission received submissions on the review of the Bail Act, and begins its' work on the preparation of Hal Sperling QC's much anticipated report to Government, it is worth reflecting on the state our remand population is in, and how it got there.

Many of you will remember fondly the former Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, who had this to say to Parliament in 2007:

“The Government is pleased to introduce the Bail Amendment Bill 2007. The bill builds on the Government’s extensive reforms over the past years to strengthen our bail laws and ensure the community is properly protected while defendants are awaiting trial. New South Wales now has the toughest bail laws in Australia. Over the last few years we have cracked down on repeat offenders – people who habitually come before our courts time and again. Part of those changes includes removing the presumption in favour of bail for a large number of crimes. We have also introduced presumptions against bail for crimes including drug importation, firearm offences, repeat property offences and riots, and an even more demanding exceptional circumstances test for murder and serious personal violence, including sexual assault. 

Those type of offenders now have a much tougher time being granted bail under our rigorous system. These extensive changes have delivered results. There is no doubt that the inmate population, particularly those on remand, has risen considerably as a result of the changes. In fact, the number of remand prisoners has increased by 20 per cent in the last three years alone and new jails are being opened to accommodate the increase.”

Bless him. He was actually proud of himself. What he failed to mention was the huge increase in the juvenile remand population under his watch, and how very few of these young people actually went on to serve a control order (sentence of detention).

If you want to read someone break this and every other bail-related topic down, then head to the excellent submission by former Magistrate, Max Taylor, for the NSW Council of Civil Liberties here.

An excerpt from his work:

The shameful way this society treats unconvicted juveniles is set out at 0.7. When half the 12 to 17 year olds in gaol are on remand and the reality is that 80% of such young people will not receive a control order within 12 months, then something has gone radically wrong with the bail system. In should be added that juvenile admissions to remand have increased from 3203 in 2005-2006 to 4439 in 2009-2010. In 2005-2006 only 392 went from remand to control. Out of a total of 5073 admissions to Juvenile Justice Centres in 2009-2010 only 472 went from remand to control.

Time for NSW to escape the penal colony

By Richard, Ackland, SMH, 1 March 2011:

Someone get a gavel. Any minute now the bidders will arrive for the latest law and order auction. 'Do I hear ''Life sentence'', anyone?'

THE prospect of a NSW election without a strong dose of law'n'order doesn't seem right. The restraint was promised by both sides, but it's inevitable that they will fall off the wagon. Greg Smith, the shadow attorney-general, has already shown what he's made of with a promise of mandatory life sentences for cop killers.

I thought that had already been promised in an earlier auction. Indeed it was. It's a dusted down version of an old Peter Debnam promise.

There was anger in 2006 that the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed a conviction for the murder of a police officer. The then premier, Morris Iemma, was so livid he said he was considering the introduction of re-education programs for judges.

As it is, you only get 25 years' non-parole if you murder a judge. Same for killing a police officer. Presumably when the Liberals speak of life sentences, they don't mean anything as soft as 25 years.

After the Cronulla disturbances in 2005 Iemma advocated top-up prison sentences for anyone who attacked a surf lifesaver. The possibilities for the sentencing of special categories of victims are limitless. Maybe lighter sentences for those who slay columnists or disc jockeys would be an attractive vote getter.

Under a no-nonsense O'Farrell government young graffiti artists will no longer be subject to police discretion. If caught spraying and daubing on walls it will be straight off to court. The courts will be empowered to cancel ''graffiti vandals''' driver's licences or extend the time they are provisional drivers.

Presumably they'll be allowed to keep their skateboards.

Smith was quoted last year as saying: ''I understand that the culture hasn't been to jail [graffiti offenders] and we've got to change that culture, otherwise our city is just going to be an … eyesore.''

Rock throwers and knife carriers are next.

Labor has yet to announce its law and justice policy. It has unveiled a proposal to introduce new laws to target serious crime ''committed in groups''. Watch out for legislation dealing with ''complicity''.

There was also legislation to allow courts to detain new categories of violent offenders beyond their term of imprisonment. The Liberals don't disagree with that. So far, though, we're seeing a softer John Hatzistergos and a milder Greg Smith.

Smith admits he's been on quite a journey. He was once a ''headkicking prosecutor … I defended life imprisonment. I fitted in with that hard-line genre''.

At a recent gathering conducted by the Community Justice Coalition, Smith conceded that years of punitive rhetoric and policies have ''done a lot of harm … It has turned a reasonably enlightened prison system into a penal colony''.

Last act for Hatzistergos before axe falls

By Richard Ackland, SMH, March 18, 2011:

Attorney-General John Hatzistergos has performed what we can only hope is his final act of bastardry before he is flung out of office. As long as Hatzistergos had breath in his body he was going to see the end of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery - and his final play in the battle was the appointment of Ian Temby, QC, as acting DPP for two months.

Today is Cowdery's last day in office. He turns 65 tomorrow and to keep the full extent of his pension benefits he has to go right now. There's a certain amount of government deliberation in that situation - more of that in a moment.

The Attorney-General put out a statement on Wednesday lauding Temby's capacities and achievements. Labor governments have been in and out of love with Temby ever since federal attorney-general Gareth Evans plucked him from the Perth bar to be the first Commonwealth DPP.

There was a two-sentence mention of Cowdery at the bottom of the announcement, thanking him for his service and noting the government ''valued the integrity of his prosecutorial decisions''. In any language it was a singularly icy farewell.

Cowdery had advised the government that he was available to serve as acting DPP from tomorrow so that the functions of the office could continue seamlessly until the incoming government found a replacement. About 11.05am on Wednesday, Hatzistergos phoned Cowdery to say his resignation had been accepted. He added he had taken advice from the Solicitor-General and would not agree to Cowdery's suggestion that he continue in an acting capacity.

Further, he would not even appoint the current deputy DPP, Lou Lamprati, SC, as acting director. Temby would take the job for two months - full stop. However, if the incoming government had not filled the position within Temby's tenure, Lamprati might be able to be acting director. How's that for tortured jockeying?

The reality is that Cowdery was perfectly entitled and eligible to be appointed for a term as acting director. It would have been the most efficient and cost-effective thing to do but under this regime memories are long and unforgiving.

Hatzistergos v Cowdery - final round

By Theodora, Justinian, March 17, 2011:

The appointment of Ian Temby as acting NSW DPP was unnecessary, expensive and an act of vindictiveness, according to Theodora 

Attorney General John Hatzistergos phoned outgoing DPP Nicholas Cowdery on Wednesday (March 16) and told him Temby would be taking over for two months as acting DPP, until the incoming government found a replacement.

He rejected Cowdery's offer to stay on as acting director. Cowdery ends his 17-year stint as NSW DPP today (Friday, March 18), one day before his 65th birthday on Saturday.

Hatzistergos' explanation for the rejection of Cowdery's offer was that the legislation doesn't allow him to extend his appointment, even in an acting capacity.

Curiously, he told the DPP this was the advice he had from the Solicitor General, but according to Cowdery's version of the conversation with the AG, the SG said the situation "might be open to other interpretations".

Indeed it might, because the saving and transitional provisions of the DPP Act say that the amendments of 2007, which removed Cowdery's life tenure (till age 72) and made him ineligible for reappointment ("including reappointment after the end of the director's term"), do not apply to any senior officer of the DPP who held office immediately before the commencement of the amendments. See s.36(4) DPP Act. 

It was sheer bloody mindedness on the part of Hatzistergos that prevented Cowdery being extended for a few more months.

All the more so because having Cowdery as acting DPP would have saved the state money. Temby is to be paid at least the DPP's salary - at the rate of $354,030 p.a. plus $22,000 by way of a "conveyance allowance".

Had Cowdery been permitted to stay on, his pay would be the difference between his pension and his salary - a saving to the state of 40 percent of the usual DPP's purse.

Hatzistergos would not even appoint the deputy DPP, Lou Lamprati SC, as acting director. Temby is it.

Hatzistergos effectively forced Cowdery out of the job before the expiry of his tenure by refusing to amend an anomaly in the provisions which require the DPP to take his pension at 65, even though he could serve as director to the age of 72.

Small mindedness is never attractive, but at least Hatzistergos is not among those ALP characters who would have kept Ian Temby on a black list for what he did to Labor icon Lionel Keith Murphy.

Greens call for end to religious discrimination

Sydney Star Observer, 16 February 2011:

The NSW Greens have called for the closing of loopholes in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act that allow businesses owned by religious groups to discriminate against students, employees and clients if they hold that something about them conflicts with their beliefs.

Currently religious groups may refuse to hire GLBTs or terminate their employment, while GLBTI children can be forced out of a school with no redress.

The law was passed before homosexuality was decriminalised in NSW but has remained on the books ever since.

Greens lead candidate for the Legislative Assembly, David Shoebridge, said the party supported removing the exemptions and replacing them with a bill of rights that enshrined protection from such discrimination, while the NSW Government and the Coalition parties did not.

“Once a religious organisation receives taxpayer money to fund its operations, whether it’s a school, welfare services or accommodation, then it is absolutely unacceptable that they be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual identity, their religion or being a single mother,” Shoebridge said.

The Greens state election candidate for Marrickville, Fiona Byrne, echoed the call, singling out the NSW Attorney General for criticism.

“The NSW Attorney Genenal John Hatzistergos should be protecting the vulnerable in society rather than defending an antiquated law allowing students to be expelled due to their sexuality,” said Byrne.

A spokesman for the Attorney General told media the law was necessary “to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs”.

The Shadow Attorney General, Greg Smith indicated he believed the law needed changing, but that was not the view of his party.

The coronation of King Barry

By Tom Westbrook, Justinian, 23 February 2011:

The law and justice spokespeople for the main parties were put through their paces at a Community Justice forum in Sydney on the weekend ... Opposition parties want to make significant changes to the "penal colony" ... Labor is stuck with its record ... Tom Westbrook reports 

Community Justice Coalition's pre-election forum on criminal justice and the NSW prison system provided a unique opportunity for voters to get within sniffing distance of the main contenders.

Organisers promised a glimpse of what is a rare beast in the era of the new paradigm – the policy speech.

The closest approximation on display was shadow attorney general Greg Smith's enthusiastic vision for "a better society".

As well as the usual raft of inquiries, he proposed to end the "penal" tenor of NSW's approach to criminal justice system. Instead, under the Coalition there would be a renewed focus on education and rehabilitation.

Smith added that what an O'Farrell government might actually deliver was, "for the leader to announce".

NSW attorney general John Hatzistergos and Greens MLC David Shoebridge were also in attendance with their parties' responses to a CJC questionnaire on law and order policies.