Extending the electronic net in Australia and New Zealand: developments in electronic monitoring down-under

Abstract

Introduction Australia and New Zealand, although far removed from the United States and Europe, have always shown a willingness to take on new European and American developments in crime control, especially those involving high technology. The first Pentonville-style prison in Melbourne in the 1830s, for example, installed an elaborate treadmill which, despite the best efforts of the authorities, was regularly out of order – much to the prisoners’ approval (National Trust of Australia (Victoria) 1991). More recently, Australia has explored a variety of new technologies of crime control (Grabosky 1998). It was predictable, therefore, that Australia and New Zealand would experiment with EM as soon as it became available. EM programmes have been running since the early 1990s in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia (Aungles 1995). New Zealand’s use of EM began in 1999 to support the introduction of home detention as an alternative to imprisonment (Gibbs and King 2003). This chapter explores the use of EM in Australia and New Zealand, not only for correctional purposes following criminal prosecution and conviction, but also for surveillance of individuals deemed to be at risk of committing serious violent crimes or terrorist-related activities. We briefly examine the drivers that led to the development of EM in each country, then consider the legislative framework used to support these orders. We then review the structure and scale of programmes and issues of controversy arising from practice and research. We conclude with some thoughts on ethics and on the future of EM.