Crossbenchers call for federal intervention after ‘deeply shocking' revelations about prison deaths
A Guardian Australia investigation on Tuesday revealed that inaction to remove known hanging points from 19 prisons across the country had caused a shocking death toll, more than 30 years after state governments promised to make prisons safe in the wake of the Aboriginal deaths in custody royal commission.
In one case, 10 inmates hanged themselves from the same type of ligature point at Brisbane's Arthur Gorrie prison over almost 20 years, despite early warnings that it be immediately addressed.
Guardian Australia has spent five months investigating the deadly toll of Australia's inaction to remove hanging points from its jails, a key recommendation of the 1991 royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody.
The main finding – that 57 inmates died using known ligature points that had not been removed – was made possible by an exhaustive examination of coronial records relating to 248 hanging deaths spanning more than 20 years.
Reporters combed through large volumes of coronial records looking for instances where a hanging point had been used repeatedly in the same jail.
They counted any death that occurred after prison authorities were made aware of that particular hanging point. Warnings were made via a prior suicide or suicide attempt, advice from their own staff or recommendations from coroners and other independent bodies.
Guardian Australia also logged how many of the 57 inmates were deemed at risk of self-harm or had attempted suicide before they were sent into cells with known hanging points.
In adherence with best practice in reporting on this topic, Guardian Australia has avoided detailed descriptions of suicide. In some instances, so that the full ramifications of coronial recommendations can be understood, we have made the decision to identify types and locations of ligature points. We have done this only in instances where we feel the public interest in this information being available to readers is high.
In another, four inmates were able to hang themselves from the same hanging point at the Adelaide Remand Centre after the state government was explicitly warned to either remove it or minimise its risk. In many cases, prisoners who were known suicide risks – like Gavin Ellis, a beloved son whose mother still mourns his loss – were sent into cells with hanging points that had been used in prior deaths.
The revelations prompted immediate calls from crossbenchers for the Albanese government to show national leadership on the issue and pressure state governments to engage in reform of their justice and prison systems.
The independent senator David Pocock said the cases were 'deeply shocking' and highlight 'a widespread failure in our prison system'.
'I would support more federally coordinated action to better address these persistent failures, whether through a Senate inquiry or action by national cabinet,' he said.
The Greens justice spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the 57 deaths showed Australia's prison system was 'fundamentally broken and killing people, even though governments have been on notice for decades'.
He said it was time for the federal government to intervene.
'Thirty-four years after the Royal Commission, First Nations people are still dying from government inaction and broken promises,' he said.
'It's impossible to imagine something more awful than families losing their loved ones because a hanging point, that the authorities knew had killed before, still hadn't been removed.'
The deaths disproportionately affected Indigenous Australians, who remain vastly overrepresented in the system. Seven Indigenous Australians hanged themselves in 2023-24, a number not recorded since 2000-01.
The independent senator Lidia Thorpe said Guardian Australia's findings revealed 'shocking negligence'. She said the federal government could not keep 'pretending this is just a state issue'.
'That's not only misleading – it's a shameful abdication of responsibility,' Thorpe said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'The Prime Minister needs to show leadership. These are preventable deaths. This is life or death. And it's long past time for action.'
Thorpe called for the coronial system to be overhauled, and 'real accountability mechanisms' to be put in place. She also wants to see someone tasked with the responsibility of overseeing and driving the implementation of the royal commission recommendations.
'Thirty years after the Royal Commission, people are still dying in exactly the same way. Governments are sitting on their hands while our people die in these brutal facilities,' Thorpe said.
'Implementing the Royal Commission recommendations won't just help First Nations people – it will save lives across the entire prison system.'
The independent MP and former barrister Zali Steggall said the deaths represented a 'systemic human rights failure' that 'demands immediate action'.
'I call on the government for firm national leadership,' she said. 'There urgently needs to be commitment and a timeline for the implementation for reform and previous recommendation.
'It's been more than 30 years since the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and countless more inquiries, and little has changed. It's clear that a step change on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy is needed by the government who have done very little to push progress since the referendum.'
In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Indigenous Australians can call 13YARN on 13 92 76 for information and crisis support. Other international helplines can be found at befrienders.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Two-year-old sexually abused at family daycare by man living at the premises, mother claims
A mother has claimed her two-year-old daughter was sexually abused at a family daycare service by a man she did not know was living there. The alleged offender was the partner of the woman running the service, located at a private home in New South Wales. Police, the Department of Education and the Department of Communities and Justice investigated, but the woman told Guardian Australia that, without physical evidence, no charges were able to be laid and no action was taken against the man or the service, which is still operating. Jennifer* said her daughter Ava* was two years old and attending a family daycare centre – a service run by an individual in their home, but which still receives the federal childcare subsidy – when she started talking about interactions with a man she didn't know. Some were innocuous, others rang alarm bells. 'It was sort of like, 'Who is [this person]?' It was just a bit off, it was just strange,' said Jennifer, who says she had no idea there was a man living at the home where the service operated. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Jennifer called the woman running the centre to ask her about it. 'I, in good faith, rang [her] the next day, thinking that there would actually be an explanation for it all.' But Jennifer said the response from the woman about the man – who was the woman's partner – was defensive and angry, something that raised 'red flags' for Jennifer, so she un-enrolled Ava. In the months that followed, Jennifer said Ava's behaviour changed. 'She regressed in toilet training, she'd just become sort of more anxious than she'd ever been and getting scared all the time, like really bizarre stuff like screaming … which she'd never been before.' By this point nearly three years old, Ava then disclosed that the man had exposed himself to her and he had touched her private parts, Jennifer said. Ava's disclosures came after seeing something that reminded her of the family daycare. She told her parents that some of the incidents occurred when she was in the daycare's sleep room. Jennifer reported the alleged incidents to police, who investigated, taking a statement from Ava and from her parents. Ava had to undergo a medical assessment by a specialist doctor who deals with potential child victims of sexual abuse but there was no physical evidence of assault. The man was not charged with any offences against Ava. Jennifer said that before reporting to police, she consulted with friends in the police force, who told her that a conviction or even a charge against the man was very unlikely. 'Basically, this has been everyone's advice the whole time: you won't get a conviction unless she's got an STD, or there's semen, or physical evidence. You won't get a conviction. But if there's a record of investigation, it might help someone in 20 years' time, basically. That's what it was for … in 20 years' time, when people start reporting things … there's something on record.' Jennifer praised the police and the Department of Communities and Justice, which served as a liaison with the family and organised support, including counselling, for them, but said the process was still incredibly distressing for Ava. 'She knew what was going on. She's a pretty smart chicken. Even though she was so young, she sort of knew … she remained upset and anxious for quite some time.' An assessment of Ava's behaviour, from a new daycare service that Jennifer eventually enrolled Ava in, seen by Guardian Australia, said Ava 'shows signs of anxiety' and an 'ongoing difficulty to separate from parents' as well as 'distress around sleeping'. The education department also conducted an investigation into the childcare service after the reports were made to police but, in a summary of its findings, seen by Guardian Australia, it wrote: 'There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of the National Law and Regulations. Insufficient evidence to determine [the man] posed a risk to children. No further action was taken by the department. The case was closed.' Jennifer says the department of education investigation left her with more questions. Had they looked into whether the man was present at the service when the children were there? Had they looked into whether the woman running the service left some children alone while she was getting the other children to sleep? 'Why can't they tell us these key points?' she says. 'You don't have confidence because they don't give you answers. 'The investigation… absolutely made me even more distrustful.' In response to general questions about its procedures, the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority said that if a police investigation does not result in charges, the authority still conducts its own investigation and has the power to take strong action. It said it had issued 211 prohibition notices to people working in early childhood education and care in NSW over the last four and a half years and had prosecuted 34 providers, nominated supervisors and individuals since 2021. None of the prosecutions were for incidents involving alleged sexual abuse. Family daycare centres provide care to more than 71,000 Australian children, including around 22,000 in NSW, making up 5.1% of all early childhood education and care services. The service Ava attended is still operating. Guardian Australia has not confirmed whether the man is still living at the premises. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Jennifer said that she was shocked to learn that family daycare centres have no regulatory obligation to inform parents of who lives at the home, although every member of a household where a family daycare operates must have a working with children check. She says she had no idea that the woman running the service had a partner living in the home. 'It wasn't until Ava came home and started talking about [him], and we're like, 'Who is [this person]?'' Jennifer would like to see this change, to make it mandatory for all family daycare centres to inform parents of who lives at or will be present while their children are in care. She would like to see reform to the way investigations into those working with children – or in close proximity to them – happen, so action can be taken against people who have had credible allegations made against them, even if the level of proof does not reach that required for a criminal conviction. 'That's a hard one because, you know, you don't want innocent people to be punished,' she said. '[But] the level of evidence required for a conviction in court is so high; for beyond reasonable doubt. And when you've got no physical evidence and you've got the words of the two-year-olds, it's not going to stand up in court.' But she says the Department of Communities and Justice, when it met with the family, had a more 'child-centred' focus in talking about the case. 'They came to the house and sat down with us and went through everything and they were amazing and they explained how even though there's no evidence doesn't mean that it didn't occur. It was just more of an open finding. 'They were more believing. And so I feel like there needs to be more of a child-centred approach … rather than a criminal approach. 'I feel like whatever the DCJ were doing felt more holistic without outright coming out and saying like, yes, he's guilty.' Jennifer suggested there could be a threshold of proof, lower than the criminal threshold, that allowed regulators to take actions or impose prohibitions, when there were credible allegations. 'So maybe, I don't know, [this man] shouldn't be in the house when she's operating her family daycare,' she suggests. The incident happened a number of years ago and Jennifer says Ava is, for the most part, doing well. She has friends, thrives at sport and in school, but 'she has her moments, she'll melt down and sometimes we're like: is that part of it? Sometimes you wonder what part of the trauma carries through.' Jennifer and her partner debate what to tell Ava about it when she is older. 'That's a real struggle for us, how do we handle this in the future? Do you want to know this when you're older? Do we have a duty to tell her? It's a quagmire.' 'For my partner and I, we think about it all the time. Occasionally we say to each other, 'God, I was thinking about that today. Like, I can't believe … I've been able to hold it together.'' *Names have been changed to protect privacy In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit In an emergency, call 000. International helplines can be found via
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Howard-era Asio questioning powers ‘never intended to be permanent', Australia's human rights chief warns
The boss of Australia's human rights commission has questioned Labor's moves to make Asio's powers for compulsory questioning permanent, warning a planned expansion of the 9/11-era laws must include robust safeguards for individuals. The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, introduced two pieces of legislation this week designed to remove so-called sunset provisions on the domestic spy agencies' powers to compel cooperation. The rules act as effective expiry dates on the powers and require parliament to reconsider their reach on a regular basis. Labor will also add sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on the defence system and serious threats to Australia's border security to the rules for compulsory questioning. Under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, intelligence operatives have powers to issue a questioning warrant requiring a person as young as 14 to give information or produce items that may assist in a serious investigation. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Introduced after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, the powers have hardly been used since 2020, with just four warrants served on three people, in counter-terror and espionage cases. The human rights commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, said Asio should have the necessary powers to protect Australians, but that the current compulsory questioning powers are extraordinary in their intrusions on a number of fundamental human rights, 'and were never intended to be permanent'. 'The two bills introduced by the government propose to not only extend, and then repeal entirely, the existing sunset provision to make these compulsory questioning powers permanent, but also in some respects to expand the scope of the existing powers,' she said. Finlay said the commission would closely consider the proposed changes and engage with an inquiry expected to be run by parliament's joint committee on intelligence and security (PJCIS). She said any limitations on human rights must be necessary and proportionate, and come with 'robust safeguards'. The Greens justice spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the laws should be considered by a transparent and open inquiry, not run by the PJCIS, which is dominated by Labor and the Coalition. 'Making permanent these oppressive Howard-era powers is already deeply troubling, but they are going even further and expanding when and how they can be used,' he said. 'History shows that once governments get these intrusive powers they never want to let them go, and that is exactly what we see here with the sunset provisions now being stripped out. 'Asio wants these powers and the major parties are falling over themselves to deliver them through a stitched-up secret parliamentary inquiry regardless of what the public thinks.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Shoebridge said parliamentary scrutiny of the plan must include public hearings. 'There are real questions about how these new powers could be used to target legitimate protesters and critics of the government, harsh immigration laws and the defence establishment.' The powers are scheduled to sunset on 7 September this year. They will be temporarily extended, for 18 months, to allow parliament to consider the wider bill, which would make the powers permanent. Introducing the changes to parliament this week, Burke said Asio should retain the powers 'to navigate an increasingly complex, challenging and changing security environment and deliver on its mission to protect the safety of Australia and Australians'. When the laws were first introduced, Howard government attorney general Daryl Williams described them as 'extraordinary' and 'a measure of last resort'.
