Prison administration in New South Wales - 1896 to 1909

CRG Report Number
22-73

Criminology Research Council grant ; (22/73)

This is an historical study of the career of F. W. Neitenstein, I.S.O., Comptroller-General of Prisons in New South Wales from the time of his appointment in mid-1896 to his retirement in late 1909. Special emphasis is given to the prison service as an organisational entity set within the context of the state bureaucracy of the day, and to some incentives for and barriers to the reform of this organisation.

The historical orientation of the study is intended to reduce in some measure the problems of historical thinness and inaccuracy besetting contemporary Australian penology generally, as well as the utilisation in part of the immensely rich and varied trove of historical data which exist in relation to the penal system of New South Wales.

The study is divided into five sections. Part I describes the historical background and origin of the New South Wales prison system from the time of the arrival of the First Fleet; the appointment of Harold Maclean as first Inspector-General of Prisons in 1864; the career of Maclean (1874-1889) and later George Miller (1890-1896) as Comptroller-General of Prisons, and Neitenstein's early career in the New South Wales Department of Public Instruction, first as Commander of the N.S.S. 'Vernon' and subsequently of the I.S.S. 'Sobraon'.

Part II is an account of the changes made by Neitenstein to the prison system from mid-1896 to 1902. These changes were of three kinds: structural, systematic and regulatory change. Regulatory changes in particular are analysed in terms of three different perspectives-as Neitenstein viewed them, and as they were regarded from within and outside the prison system.

From this time Neitenstein increasingly strove to implement reforms through legislative and judicial change. The shifting of his concerns from the internal aspects of the prison system to the legislative and political arenas is discussed, along with the reasons and factors compelling this action.

Part III is an account of the later years of Neitenstein's administration. Here his activities as a penal reformer are considered from a slightly different perspective so as to bring out the specifically bureaucratic factors which influenced his policies and practices. Statutory changes effected from 1899 to 1908 are closely examined. A tour undertaken by Neitenstein during 1903-04 and his subsequent philosophical orientation is described. The problem posed by a particular class of prisoner (in this case women) and the limited ways and means open to Neitenstein to attempt its resolution are discussed. Finally Part III considers Neitenstein's qualities as an administrator, and evaluates some of the reasons for his success and failure to achieve reforms within the parameters of the state bureaucracy.

Part IV examines the final details of Neitenstein's career as a penal reformer: the circumstances of his early retirement and the appointment of a successor. The career of his nominee, Samuel McCauley, is briefly reviewed in an attempt to establish whether or not this choice of a successor was an error of judgement, and to see why Neitenstein was unable to ensure McCauley's appointment.

The conclusion of the study represents an attempt to describe and to define the ways in which change of a reformist kind may be implemented by administrators in Westminster-model bureaucracies.

Broadly, in considering the question as to why and how Neitenstein managed to make such a profound impression on the New South Wales penal system, the factor taken to be of greatest importance was the quality of leadership. Neitenstein's role as leader is in some respects akin to the forms of leadership described by Weber as charismatic, traditional and bureaucratic. Elements of each are seen in Neitenstein's leadership, particularly in charismatic form. But above all Neitenstein was considered a great 'bureaucratic' administrator who skilfully combined patriarchal leadership and orderly bureaucratic authority, with its streamlined routines, into a style of organisation which was at once humane, economical, efficient and just.