Department for Correctional Services, $339,527,000

Membership:

Ms Hildyard substituted for Mr Malinauskas.

Mr Gee substituted for Mr Brown.

Minister:

Hon. C.L. Wingard, Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Brown, Chief Executive, Department for Correctional Services.

Mr C. Sexton, Executive Director, People and Business Services, Department for Correctional Services.

Ms B. Daly, Acting Senior Executive Services Consultant, Department for Correctional Services.

Ms N. Boal, Acting Director, Governance and Executive Support, Department for Correctional Services.

The CHAIR: The proposed payments are for the folio of the Department for Correctional Services and we have the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services appearing before us. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements Volume 1. Minister, could you please update the committee with your new advisers, and should you wish to make an opening statement you certainly may.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To my left I have Chris Sexton, Executive Director, People and Business Services; to my right I have David Brown, Chief Executive of DCS; behind me, I have Natalie Boal, Acting Director, Governance and Executive Support; and also Brigid Daly, Acting Senior Executive Services Consultant.

Whether it is in the areas of health, aged care, education, emergency services or law enforcement, this government is committed to providing better public services across the board while also creating better public value across the board. Importantly, this government is committed to better public safety for all. As Minister for Correctional Services, let me say that I am delighted to be leading the Better Prisons program which includes a range of sweeping reforms to South Australia's prison system. The Marshall government is delivering all the elements that this state needs to create a world-leading prison system. We are investing in our public prisons and ensuring that our facilities are run efficiently, in line with industry best standard and practice—more prison capacity, more prison jobs and more prison investment in infrastructure and technology.

The decision to transition the Adelaide Remand Centre to a private provider was made in the public interest, and I make no apologies for that. Accommodating a prisoner at the Remand Centre is expensive, more expensive than it has to be. I have every confidence that DCS staff, particularly those who work in our prisons, will engage fully in the sweeping reforms of the Better Prisons program. The $200 million investment in the public prison in this year's budget is testament to that, and 310 new high security beds in the Northfield precinct is testament to that.

I am also proud to reiterate this government's bipartisan support to reduce reoffending by 2020. We are building on that and, to be quite frank, in some respects we have been left to do the heavy lifting, because there is one simple fact that cannot be denied: we cannot deliver on rehabilitation if we do not have enough prison beds. Expanding prison capacity across existing prison sites has a multitude of other benefits: jobs for local businesses, jobs for contractors and subcontractors, jobs in the regions where some other businesses are doing it tough. Importantly, expanding our capacity means jobs in corrections.

Already in my time as minister, I have seen dozens of trainee correctional officers graduate into what will be challenging but rewarding careers. Despite the substantial challenges facing our prison system, I am committed to working with DCS to ensure it continues to fulfil its obligations to effectively manage the state's prisoners and offenders. The Better Prisons program is also about exploring new pathways and implementing changes to benefit the system and ultimately the community. In fact, through the Better Prisons program, this government has made the biggest capital investment in the South Australian prison system in a generation.

The Better Prisons program is going to future-proof our system to meet projected growth. The Better Prisons program is also about improving efficiency and accountability across our entire prison system. We want our prisons to be the best that they can be and we are going to do whatever it takes to make them the best they can be. Again, this is something that I am very proud of as correctional services minister. It is a fairly simple equation: a high performing prison is ultimately going to deliver better rehabilitation outcomes for prisoners, which means improved community safety and ultimately less victims of crime.

Speaking of rehabilitation outcomes, I want to share with you my recent experience at the official launch of the Work Ready, Release Ready program, one of the flagship programs driving the bipartisan strategy to reduce reoffending by 10 per cent by the year 2020. It is an innovative program designed to help prisoners prepare for employment in the lead-up to their release so that, when they do leave the prison gates, they are re-entering society with the right skills, qualifications and training to go straight into a job.

Ultimately, Work Ready, Release Ready is about placing offenders on a different pathway, away from crime and towards sustainable employment. This program involves three key phases: phase 1 is Work Ready, phase 2 is Release Ready and phase 3 is the employment phase that sees offenders provided with targeted employment support, including direct linkages to employers to ensure they can find and maintain a job upon release.

The government I serve is committed to building the economy and growing jobs in our state. It is my expectation that my department and its partners are providing prisoners every opportunity to build their skills to address their offending behaviour and to apply themselves to be work ready by the time they are ready for release. This government is committed to building employment opportunities across the state for everybody, including those who have been in prison. It is great that the Work Ready, Release Ready program is being run in both the regional and metro areas across five sites, namely, Adelaide Pre-Release Centre, Adelaide Women's Prison, Mobilong Prison, Cadell Training Centre and Port Augusta Prison.

It is an undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of those in custody will one day be released into the community. We want to make sure that, when they do re-enter the community, they are equipped with the skills and training to gain employment and have post-prison support to keep them on the path, away from a life of crime. I firmly believe that important reforms, such as the Better Prisons program, will enable us to not only meet but possibly exceed the 10by20 target set down by the last government.

In closing, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the men and women of corrections, who work tirelessly behind the scenes 24/7, 365 days per year to make the community in which we live a safer place. Corrections may not be perceived by some as a particularly glamorous line of work, but what I can tell you from firsthand experience, as I have toured our prisons and community correctional centres around the state, is that the pride and professionalism of corrections staff is second to none. It is that pride and professionalism, that dedication to community safety and reducing reoffending, that will drive the Better Prisons program and help to create a world-leading prison system in South Australia.

The CHAIR: Thank you very much, minister. Member for Elizabeth, will you make an opening statement or go straight into questions?

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go straight into questions. I should clarify that the minister is indeed the Minister for Correctional Services.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, if you have a question, I suggest you ask the question and refer to the budget.

Mr ODENWALDER: I could refer to ministerial responsibilities, sir.

The CHAIR: Do whatever you like, but ask a question.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will continue. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 105, Custodial Services. These questions relate to the escape and subsequent capture of the violent criminal Shane Gauci. I apologise if I have pronounced the name wrong. When were you told that this prisoner had absconded?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have to check on times and dates. Give me a moment.

Mr ODENWALDER: It happened on Monday.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I know when it happened. I am just trying to work out the time. It was Monday morning when my staff were briefed, and I was briefed after that.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry? Say that again, please.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: On Monday morning my staff were briefed, and I was then briefed by them immediately.

Mr ODENWALDER: What action did you take immediately upon receiving this information?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, this is an operational matter, so there is—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, I am asking what you did.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And I am explaining that this is an operational matter, so I cannot go and catch the guy. That is not what you want me to do, or anyone to do. It is actually for SAPOL to then step in, do the operations, start trying to apprehend the guy and bring him back into custody. I personally am not involved in that operational process. I am not on the front line. That is not my job and not my responsibility. As the correctional services minister, I do not think it is any minister's responsibility to actually get their hands into any operations. As I have said: as it was, once the guy was on the run, it became a SAPOL matter. I will invite the CE of Corrections to give you some more detail on the operations because that is his domain.

Mr BROWN: Thank you, minister. The information that I received was: shortly after 9 o'clock I was advised that we had a prisoner unlawfully at large from a community work program. That prisoner was Shane Gauci and he had absconded from the work van en route to an off-site work location. I was briefed by the responsible executive with respect to that incident and what steps had been taken to secure the remaining prisoners on that work program to ensure that all critical information was available for SAPOL as they deployed their resources to the incident scene and to take steps to apprehend the prisoner. Once those operational matters were in train, we provided the necessary updates to the minister's office.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to add to that point: of course, I was told that it happened. I am not involved in the operations, but I was regularly briefed along the way as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: By SAPOL?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: By SAPOL and by Corrections as needed and as warranted.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given that you were regularly briefed and you are the minister for both agencies, what measures were taken by you to inform the affected suburbs that there was a prisoner on the loose?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, it is not my role to meddle in operations. I would advise any minister for police and the future minister for police, if that is their aspiration, that they do not meddle in operations. It is SAPOL that run the operations when it comes to policing and the chief executive looks after that when it comes to Corrections. Operations are done by the people on the ground.

Mr ODENWALDER: When you were informed on Monday morning that Shane Gauci had absconded, did you ask any questions of your agency about the nature of his crimes? Did you ask what sort of person it was that we were dealing with on the loose?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am trying to think if I asked or if I was told. I may—

Mr ODENWALDER: Did you ask for a briefing about him particularly and what he had done?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, to make a couple of points, I was informed and information was given to me. The key to this is—and I am really trying to stress this point because there is potentially a misconception out there that I get involved in operations and that I have something to do with operations—I have to be really, really clear that SAPOL do policing and that is their role. I am not here to tell the police commissioner how to do his job. I back the police to do their job and they do their job very, very well in South Australia. Whilst I am briefed and updated on what is going on and any information, I cannot get involved in the operation to try to catch someone. That is very much a SAPOL operation.

Mr ODENWALDER: I promise I am not going to harp on about this. I am just trying to establish the level of interest you took initially. You hear that a prisoner escapes: do you immediately ask for the information about this prisoner?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think I made that very clear that I got the information first thing Monday morning. I am presuming the time line here, but as soon as the chief executive was aware, he let my office know, who let me know. That was the exact time line—it could not have been any swifter and I appreciate that great correspondence.

Mr ODENWALDER: So both you and the chief executive knew on Monday morning of Shane Gauci's rap sheet, to use the colloquial? You knew the nature of his crimes and what he was locked up for?

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: I have listened carefully to the member for Elizabeth and I have started to wonder whether this might be a topical case study in relation to a line item. This is not an occasion to have a general discussion—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth.

Mr TEAGUE: —with the minister about the portfolio area generally and how operational matters are responded to. I ask that the member direct the committee to the relevant line item and otherwise stick to the question.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I am listening intently. All week, I have been quite broad in my allowing of debate and broad-natured questions, and, as always, ask for the minister to choose to respond how he sees fit. At this stage, I am prepared to rule that the question is in order.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, sir. I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that the minister should be involved in operational matters. What I am suggesting is that he should take an interest. My questions are to what sort of interest he took in the proceedings. My question, before I was interrupted by the member for Heysen, was: on the Monday morning, both the CE and the minister were aware of this person's crimes, his criminal history. Did the minister have any discussions with the CE before he went on to the radio the next morning to discuss it?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No. What I can tell you is I was—

Mr ODENWALDER: You did not have any discussions with your CE before he went on the radio on Tuesday morning?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, you asked your question and the minister is certainly answering.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am just clarifying. So no, the answer is no.

The CHAIR: No need to—

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay, the answer is no.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: My office and I had contact with the CE at 9.13 on Monday morning, when it first became apparent, and then again at 11.47, and dialogue continued throughout the course of the day around this issue. We did have conversations throughout the course of the day, and I was made aware of the criminal history of this person, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: But again, I stress the point not to meddle in operations.

Mr ODENWALDER: Indeed, okay.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: SAPOL are the people who run that, and SAPOL are the best people to handle that.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can I just clarify, there are currently two inquiries then? There is an internal Corrections inquiry and a SAPOL inquiry into what happened? I do not want to pre-empt anything about these inquiries, but I would like to know the general areas they are looking at.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Corrections has an internal inquiry, or a review, into what went on from their perspective.

Mr ODENWALDER: Into the escape?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes. SAPOL is investigating the offence; that is what they do. They were here a few moments ago. I could have asked them about that then. They investigate the offence, and Corrections will—

Mr ODENWALDER: The offence is escaping from custody, or something? Is that what you meant? Is that what you mean by 'the offence'—escaping lawful custody or something?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The actual offence would be determined by the prosecution, but I think the line you are going down is here. We are on the same page. I will not be held or quoted on the actual term of the offence, but yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Corrections are doing their review as well.

Ms BEDFORD: I was going to use all my questions for other things, but—

The CHAIR: We can always go to the member for Heysen, who I know is very keen to—

Ms BEDFORD: —following on from that, because it has been very broad, I heard on the radio that—

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Florey, which budget paper?

Ms BEDFORD: It is the same broad one he had—

The CHAIR: Which is? I have been consistent all day. If you cannot name it, you do not get the question.

Ms BEDFORD: Alright. It is the same one, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, whatever page Lee was on.

The CHAIR: I will just go to the member for Heysen, who I think has been waiting intently all day.

Ms BEDFORD: This follows on directly from what we were just asking—

The CHAIR: No, I have been consistent all day and all week. The member for Heysen has the call. Member for Florey, you of all people should know how these committees run.

Ms BEDFORD: This follows on from the responding.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has the call.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Chair. Through you, could the minister inform the house about the department's strategies to detect and prevent the introduction of contraband into the prison system? I refer to Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, where it is addressed at pages 105 and 106.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you very much, member for Heysen. I thank him for his question. This government went into the election with a clear mandate in relation to crime, justice and the law, and as Minister for Correctional Services, I am committed to delivering outcomes across the criminal justice system that improve service delivery, increase efficiency and provide better public safety for all.

The department has been tasked with implementing the Marshall Liberal government's election commitments to pilot a program at a regional prison to block the use of contraband mobile phones, with a view to rolling it out across the prison network. We are also going to work to do what it takes to stamp out drugs in prisons.

All correctional jurisdictions are challenged by prohibited items entering the prison system. Contraband, especially drugs, poses significant risks to the safety and security of staff, prisoners and the prison system as a whole. The department continues to be vigilant to detect and intercept contraband entering the state prisons. The department already has a range of powerful contraband prevention strategies and works very closely with SAPOL in terms of information and intelligence sharing.

In fact, earlier this month, there was an interception of contraband at Port Augusta in prison by Corrections and SAPOL. A visitor was found to have passed 73 Suboxone strips and a mobile phone onto a prisoner, and Suboxone was found in the visitor's car. This was a significant find, and my understanding is that the prisoner has been charged and the visitor has been banned from the prison and faces the very real possibility of finding themselves on the other side of the prison bars. I can tell you that right now it is harder than it has ever been to introduce drugs into the prison system but, in line with the government's election commitment to a zero tolerance stance on drugs in prisons, we are going to make it even harder.

Let me touch on some of the strategies that we have committed to putting in place. We are introducing workplace drug and alcohol testing for correctional officers, staff and contractors for alcohol and illegal drugs. We are legislating to ban members of outlaw motorcycle gang members and their associates from visiting prisons. Mobile phones are, of course, already prohibited items in our prisons and there are penalties for the possession of prohibited items within the correctional institutions. We are investing $950,000 in 2019-20 for a mobile phone jamming trial that will stop prisoners from committing further crimes within prison and facilitating the flow of drugs and other contraband.

Importantly, this government is also committing $9 million over the forward estimates to upgrade security systems from analogue to digital electronic security systems at the Northfield precinct which, of course, encapsulates Yatala Labour Prison, Adelaide Women's Prison and the Pre-Release Centre.

This government's Better Prisons reform program also includes funding for key infrastructure at the Northfield precinct to improve security. The new infrastructure includes new high-security visit centres at both the Yatala Labour Prison and the Adelaide Women's Prison. These visit centres will allow for additional non-contact visits and provide improved CCTV so that prison staff are enabled to more closely monitor all visits.

The budget includes a new admissions building at the Yatala Labour Prison which will result in better screening for everyone entering the site. At the Adelaide Women's Prison we have also committed to the development of a new gatehouse that will strengthen and modernise the site's access control.

In terms of legislation, the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018 was introduced to parliament on 6 June 2018 to help us achieve these commitments. I am pleased to say that the bill passed the House of Assembly, with amendment, on budget day, 4 September 2018, the day we also announced the sweeping Better Prisons program reforms, including the largest capital investment in the system in decades at the Northfield precinct.

New technology is all very well and the legislation is important to drive reform but ultimately it is the people, the staff on the ground, who work vigilantly and tirelessly 24/7, 365 days a year. They are ultimately our strongest asset in fighting the war on drugs in our prisons.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 105, Program 2. When are we expecting the construction of the new health centre at the women's prison to be completed? Will the facility be funded to operate 24/7, as it is in the Yatala Prison for male prisoners, as opposed to the current arrangement? Will there be a mother and baby facility included as part of this upgrade?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for Florey. The Adelaide Women's Prison is the only specialist women's prison in the state. The additional high-security beds are required to meet future demand. It is important to also note that existing buildings and services at AWP are considered to be in poor condition. The additional accommodation provides DCS with the capacity to manage the high-risk and highest-needs prisoners under the full range of conditions expected to be experienced, from secure care through to independent living to release.

Stronger Together—Safe Children and Stronger Families 2017-2020 was launched in March 2018 and it brings a focus to the needs of incarcerated mothers and children that interface within the correctional system. The primary caregiver status of women offenders requires consideration in relation to service delivery and to contribute to the rehabilitation of women offenders and ultimate reduction in reoffending. The Stronger Together framework is underpinned by practices and programs that are relational and promote healthy connection to children, family and significant others.

The front entrance and reception at the Adelaide Women's Prison and Adelaide Pre-Release Centre is under review with assistance from renowned architect Sarah Paddick, with a view to improving visitor processing and making the front reception more family and child friendly. The findings will contribute into the design principles for the new gatehouse and visitor centre at the Adelaide Women's Prison and Pre-Release Centre, which funding has been provided by this year's budget process for an additional 40 beds and critical supporting infrastructure.

The DCS external internet home page now provides links for families about the operations of correctional services, especially prison and the impact on families and children. Pamphlets also have been developed to provide additional information for incarcerated women with children. The Adelaide Women's Prison and the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre have expanded visiting opportunities for women in custody with young babies, as well as streamlining and expanding opportunities for supervised Department for Child Protection visits.

Partnerships and interagency activity has commenced to improve collaborative practice for high-risk families, and for women entering custody pregnant. This includes updated procedures for pregnant women in custody to ensure both mother and infant are supported and protected in a targeted and shared care approach.

A high proportion of women enter custody as a recent victim of domestic and family violence. Children who witness domestic violence are also victims of the abusive behaviour. DCS has procured a program for women offenders in custody and the community that will seek to address women offenders' victimisation, and will educate them on the impact of domestic violence on their children.

With the expansion of the department's home detention program, more primary care givers are eligible to complete their sentence in the community. This enables suitable prisoners to be released earlier in their sentence and spend longer on home detention at home with their families. Sixty-two women commenced the post-prison home detention from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018.

DCS currently does not have a mother and baby unit operating at the Adelaide Women's Prison. Data indicates there are very few women who would be eligible to access such a facility, and resources are better directed to programs that reach a wider number of prisoners. There is a commitment, however, to undertake a business case for a multipurpose family unit to consider the most effective way of enabling women in custody to maintain family ties and ultimately connect and reunify with their children with confidence and skills.

In addition, a new health facility at the Adelaide Women's Prison, to answer the member's question, will be delivered in 2019. A short-stay, live-in section will be included in the facility, with the potential to accommodate the very small number of women who give birth in custody each year and are eligible to maintain the care of that newborn infant. Over the short-stay period, mother and infant bonding and attachment would be a primary focus and provide greater opportunities for breastfeeding. The other thing I would say to the member is that Health has carriage of the health centre, but DCS will lead the carriage of the mother and babies.

Ms BEDFORD: So I need to ask someone in Health whether you are funded to operate it 24/7; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The capital budget and operating budget for this financial year is in the budget this year, and then operating budget will be determined between Corrections and Health going forward from there. In our budget it is only the DCS component, I am informed, and the health budget is separate for their allocation.

Membership:

Mr Malinauskas substituted for Mr Gee.

The CHAIR: Before we continue, unfortunately the member for Taylor has requested to be discharged and replaced with the member for Croydon, who I believe may have a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Agency Statements, page 100. There is a reference there to key agency outputs, particularly reducing offender recidivism. The former government had a policy of reducing reoffending by 10 per cent by the year 2020, which I note you have mentioned on more than one occasion. Does the new government intend to carry on with that policy? Believe it or not, this is not a trick question. I am just trying to understand what—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I apologise. You were not here, but I did outline a lot of that in my opening statement and I am happy to revisit it for you, so thank you for giving me the opportunity. What I will say is the government confirmed its commitment to the bipartisan strategy for reducing reoffending: 10by20. The 10by20 strategy includes the following flagship initiatives—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, so my question—

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The minister has answered my question.

The CHAIR: No, member for Croydon, you asked your question and I think the minister is legitimately answering that question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —Work Ready, Release Ready; New Foundations; tailored rehabilitation for Aboriginal offenders; and rehabilitation programs. In January 2018, the previous government published the first progress report detailing the work underway to address the six 10by20 strategies. During 2017-18, the following progress has been achieved on a number of 10by20 initiatives, including Work Ready, Release Ready.

I did point out a little bit earlier that I was there to launch that at the Northfield site just recently. It was great to have so many businesses there eagerly involved and willing to be a part of this program. In fact, that was on Wednesday 29 August at the pre-release centre. The event was attended by approximately 60 people from across various areas of the community, including local businesses, local council representatives, community organisations, Indigenous organisations and Workskil Australia. The launch showcased the $9.2 million program, which has already equipped more than 185 prisoners with the qualifications and training to find and maintain employment upon their release.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, minister. My next question goes to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 26. With the operating savings, there is a line there regarding the New Foundations trial realising substantial savings, which add up to just over $18 million. I understand from previous information that you have provided in the parliament, minister, that those savings are largely a function of New Foundations not being delivered in the way it had been anticipated.

My question is: rather than realising the savings, why has the government or the department not decided to reinvest that money in an alternative method of trying to achieve that objective? The New Foundations program was aimed at ensuring that a key element that is necessary to achieve reducing reoffending could take place—i.e. access to housing for released offenders who might not otherwise get access to housing. Why has that been realised as a saving rather than reinvested in a more effective program that could achieve the same objective?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you for that question. I think it is longer than the previous sitting we had. In 2017-18, DCS only used $200,000 of the $2 million that was budgeted in funding for that project. Lessons learnt from the procurement process and market feedback will underpin the next step strategy to pilot the program and build an evidence base going forward. So it was a good idea that did not get executed to the level that was needed. We are going to keep working on the idea and keep driving ahead with the pilot. The government remains committed to the New Foundations initiative—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: By cutting it by $18 million?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —and supports piloting the program to build the non-government sector's capacity and experience in providing accommodation and support services to offenders transitioning from prison. The procurement process will be undertaken for the pilot program in 2018-19. The department will seek to form a partnership with a non-government organisation to co-design the program model based on best practice and available evidence.

The budget has been reduced to $1 million per annum across the forward estimates in 2018-19. Unfortunately, the market was not mature enough and it did not eventuate. As I said, good idea, poor execution at the time, but we will continue with the pilot program. I know your government previously had a rack 'em, stack 'em and pack 'em policy.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is not true, minister.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The former government actively departed from that policy.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, it is not for you to infer what is true or not true. The minister is providing his answer. I know the member for Florey is desperate to ask a question and I am prepared to give her one if—

Ms BEDFORD: Do not drag me into this.

The CHAIR: I will drag you in.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And to finish, again, I stress the point that we have money there to support the pilot. We will go to the market and work to try to deliver on the outcomes needed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The same budget line item: you are going to have a trial. Is the trial forecast under your stewardship to last for four years?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, we have the budget in there—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: For $1 million per annum.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —to go and do the trial.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So when will the trial conclude?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I just go back to my previous answer, under your stewardship it may have been, but $200,000 was spent and the program was not taken up.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So when will the trial conclude?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It did not work under your government. We will get to work and we will work with the industry—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So when do you forecast the trial to conclude?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We will go to market. We will run the pilot. We have allocated funds to do that. I stress the point that it was not delivered previously but we will get to work in delivering it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But when—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is what we have committed money for in the budget.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am sorry, I am going to ask the same question until I get an answer. The budget forecast that New Foundations was turning from a program to a trial. You have articulated the reasons why that is necessary. What I would like to know is: how long will the trial last?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have just been advised that it will be in place this financial year and run for three years.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: A three-year trial.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told that aligns with the Report on Government Services recidivism measures.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Report on Government Services provides an annual update on the rate of recidivism or reoffending. That happens annually from the Productivity Commission year in, year out. What does that have to do with the length of the trial?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told that will be built into the evaluation plan.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the trial is going to last for three years?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is what I said.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is a very long trial.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, previously it did not work. When you were in the chair, I presume, is about when it started, and it did not work. This is the process we are going down. We are going to work with the market and get a mature market. The market was not ready for this. They did not come to the table, so we are going to do the trial.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are going to test the market through the trial? How are you going to test the market? Is that what you are going to do during the course of the trial?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will get the CE to give you a little bit more information.

Mr BROWN: The key for us with working up a pilot with the market is to understand what elements of the procurement process and the model that we took to the market last time did not work for the NGO sector and the housing sector. Through doing that piece of market sounding and design work with the market, we will then need to review the invitation to supply that we put out to the market for the New Foundations program. One of the areas that we identified through the evaluation and feedback of the failed market process was that the market was concerned about the volume, the number of participants we were trying to bring into the program over a three-year or four-year period.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Too many?

Mr BROWN: They were worried about finding sufficient accommodation and/or being able to bring online sufficient accommodation to support that area. Really the key for us to work on with the market is the accommodation side of the program. We already have quite a lot of experience and understanding around the wraparound support and rehabilitation services.

The final point I would make about measuring the impact is that to look at someone who joins a trial or a pilot of a program, (1) we need to balance the market's ability to take the volume and (2) to have sufficient numbers to do a proper evaluation of the pilot. Furthermore, if the ultimate goal is to reduce reoffending, the measure for any individual who engages on that program is two years from the date that they commenced the program to make a proper evaluation. As chief executive of the department, I am very committed to the objectives of the New Foundations program. I think it is something we should continue to pursue with the government, but we need to do more work with the NGO sector to design the next approach to market.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. Chairman, through you, I refer to the same budget line and subject. If the trial takes three years, it will conclude before the forward estimates under this budget. If the trial concludes and is deemed to be successful, and a program is developed in a way that the market is capable of delivering and is consistent with its intent (i.e., to meet the requisite number of offenders going through the program in order to realise the 10by20 target), where will the money come from?

The CHAIR: That is an extremely hypothetical question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is not, because—

The CHAIR: It is like saying, 'Should Port Power win another flag, who is going to print the T-shirts?'

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is a pithy attempt at an analogy. What I am asking is—

The CHAIR: It is a very hypothetical question—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —if the government is not planning a trial—

The CHAIR: —and I am sure the minister will give a very hypothetical answer if he so chooses.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is not hypothetical, because the government themselves are committed to—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is an extremely hypothetical—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, if what Sam says goes, maybe he should be the minister.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, you can withdraw that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Happy to withdraw. I am trying to understand the trial. If, as one would hope, the trial is put together with the intent to succeed, presumably the forward estimates should contain a commitment on delivering the program at the end of that trial. That is clearly absent. This speaks of more than an intent to trial on the back of market failure; it speaks of a rudimentary cut to rehabilitation. I am trying to establish whether, if the trial is successful, there is committed funding in the budget to roll out the program and achieve the 10by20 target. Everyone in this room wants to see the government achieve the 10by20 target.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for the question. It was another longwinded, very hypothetical question. The Chair read my mind when he made that comment to the member. You are saying, 'If it is successful, if that happens, or if something else happens, what are you going to do then?' That makes the question incredibly hypothetical. We are having a trial, we will work through that trial, and we will address it when we get to that point.

As it stands at the moment, we do not know. I will say that you had the program there and it did not succeed. That was a shame. We will say, 'This is the methodology we are going to use,' we will have a pilot, we are going to work the pilot and we hope it succeeds. We will address that when we get to that point. Ifs, buts, candy nuts—it does not really matter.

The CHAIR: The member for Florey has been seeking the call for some time. Member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you, sir. I refer to the Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 108, Program 3: Community Based Services. In relation to the second dot point under highlights 2017-18, what proportion of the contract funding for the Home Detention Integrated Support Services Program is allocated to the intensive support program for female offenders?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you for the question. I am advised we do not have that information at hand but I will take it on notice and get back to the member with the details.

Ms BEDFORD: My last questions refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 104. Will there be any increase in funding for education in prisons and the Adelaide Remand Centre? Also, what ratio proportion is the female take-up for those education programs?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told there is no gender breakdown in that, so I will take that part on notice and get an answer for the member. However, I am also told that whenever there is new infrastructure put into the budget there is also additional funding for education and rehabilitation programs, which I think the member will be pleased to know. As far as that gender breakdown is concerned, again, I will take that on notice and get back to the member.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Back to Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 100, Key agency outputs. Regarding the 10by20 target, without the reduction in reoffending that was forecast to be achieved through the New Foundations program, is the ability of the department to reach the 10by20 target compromised?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: My advice is that it is too early to say. There are a number of projects and programs that make up the 10by20 target, and New Foundations was one. It has now been rescoped, bearing in mind the position it was in, but there are other projects: Work Ready, Release Ready; Home Detention Integrated Support Services Program; The Arches Bail Accommodation Support Program, the Aboriginal Strategic Framework rehabilitation programs. The list goes on. It is how they collectively come together. Another report will be handed down in January, I am told.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate that. What my question goes to—and I want to say this with the utmost sincerity, which the minister might find hard to believe—is that I cannot speak highly enough about how happy I was to see, in the budget papers, that there was the retention of the sort of funding you referred to for the programs you talked about. They are vital to achieve this important public policy objective and I am glad that the government has said on the record, and that you have reiterated today, that it is a worthwhile objective in terms of reducing reoffending by 10 per cent by 2020.

What concerns me though—and I am sure you can understand this—is that without the $18 million that was going to New Foundations, that money goes off into the ether. It will get swallowed up by Treasury, the hard-fought-for funds that we really had to hustle to obtain to put towards this important policy area will disappear. What I am looking for is a sense from you, minister, that that $18 million has not just disappeared but has instead been reallocated to other additional areas to achieve the public policy objective.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I appreciate your question. We know this is a complex and overarching portfolio area. When I came to this job one of the first things that was put before me was that there was the potential, that the mapping and the planning—which I know you respect and appreciate—had us on a collision course for 2020 of having more prisoners than beds.

When I asked what measures were put in place and what were we going to do to combat this, I was told there was nothing in place. When we looked at the graph of where the growth—and the tract graph that I think you are on record as appreciating as being well scrutinised and well worked through, we realised that by 2020 we were going to have more prisoners than prison beds. So we went about committing to putting into place 310 additional beds on the Northfield site, 40 in the women's prison and 270 high-security beds in the Yatala prison.

I mentioned in my opening statement—and I know you were not here; I apologise, I will repeat it so that you have it—that to do rehabilitation programs as well, you need to have the right prison environment and the right prison system, so reinvesting that will help with rehabilitation programs as well. That has been very much our point, our intention. We want a better prison system. We put a Better Prisons plan in place to make sure that we have a better prison system for South Australia, hinged around the 310 extra beds at the Northfield site that I just mentioned, a $200 million investment into the public prison system. Of course, the other parts of that are the outsourcing of the management of the Adelaide Remand Centre, which has been well and truly canvassed, and also flexible a workforce and benchmarking.

We see great opportunities and, if we can deliver this program in full, I would aspire to have the best prison system in the world. I think we should be shooting that high. A big part of having a good prison system is having a good rehabilitation system. So we are committed to the 10by20 but we are also committed to our Better Prisons program to make sure that we have enough beds to meet projected prison capacity. That is what we are going about doing and, as I said in my opening statement, I am very proud of that. I think it is going to be very good for South Australia.

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget Measures Statement, page 27. Minister, can you provide any independent reports which clearly outline a case for privatising the Adelaide Remand Centre?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just outlined that plan as part of our Better Prisons program.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, can you provide an independent report which outlines the case?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just outlined our plan for the Better Prisons program, which includes outsourcing the Remand Centre. I do note that we do have one outsourced prison in South Australia, which is at Mount Gambier.

Mr ODENWALDER: Chair, we are running out of time today. I think it is fair to ask the minister to come to the—it is a yes or no.

The CHAIR: The minister is answering the question. I cannot direct the minister to answer the question—

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, you can direct him to answer the question.

The CHAIR: —nor can I direct you in how you ask your question. I wish I could.

Mr ODENWALDER: How would you have rephrased it? Minister?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will cut it short for you then and say no.

Mr ODENWALDER: No independent report.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you. Same line. Do you stand by your assertion on the radio that it was your idea to privatise the Adelaide Remand Centre?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Absolutely. I took the idea to cabinet. Many ideas go to cabinet. It was one we agreed to as part of the budget measures. It is part of our Better Prisons program and it will deliver great outcomes for South Australia.

Mr ODENWALDER: So it was put to you: you think on your own volition, nobody came to you and said, 'Here is a problem', you think on your volition, 'I reckon we could save some money by outsourcing', you send this off to Treasury and they come back with figures saying, 'Yes, minister, you are right.'

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, what I said was—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, that is what the journalist said to you, and you said yes.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, you are quoting from?

Mr ODENWALDER: I am quoting from a radio interview with David Bevan and you said yes to that. David Bevan said, 'Is any of that wrong?' and you said no. So was it your idea?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I take full responsibility for this program—

Mr ODENWALDER: And he pressed you for it? Was it your idea?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth. Minister.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And I said, 'No, I take full responsibility for this plan and this program. I am very proud of this plan and this program.' I took it to cabinet, cabinet ratified it, we are doing it, it is in the budget papers, and you are probably looking at the budget papers right now. It is really clear and really concise. We have been up-front with what we are doing, and we have made it abundantly clear that it was a budget decision, a cabinet decision. It was put in the budget papers.

Mr ODENWALDER: But was it based on advice from the department, or did you just come up with the idea?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, what you do in this role is similar to what the previous minister would have done when he was looking at his New Foundations program. He would have been bouncing it around: he would have taken it to cabinet and he would have had it approved by cabinet, and that would be his project, if you like, or his plan.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Treasurer said, in his estimates meeting:

The simple reality is that we took advice from the CEO of Corrections and his senior officers, together with discussions with Treasury, and his advice was in relation to achieving a budget savings task that confronted them…was that the Adelaide Remand Centre made good sense.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, can you repeat that quote?

Mr ODENWALDER: Sure. It was from the Treasurer, last Friday:

The simple reality is that we took advice from the CEO of Corrections…and his advice was in relation to achieving a budget savings task that confronted them…was that the Adelaide Remand Centre made good sense.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: So again I say—

Mr ODENWALDER: All am asking you to do is confirm whether it was your idea or an idea that was brought to you and you then brought to cabinet.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am not going to debate whose idea it was, or whether it was claiming an idea or stealing an idea. The process—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, the minister is answering the question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The process is this: as the minister I take proposals to cabinet. Cabinet ratifies them and then they are actioned. That is how it appeared in the budget. I took it to cabinet and cabinet processed it and agreed with it. It was in the budget, and here we are.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay. Why then was the Adelaide Remand Centre chosen?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is a very good question. There are a couple of key points to this. A big part of it is its stand-alone functionality. It is a slightly different unit to the other prison systems, if you like. Its size is 274 beds, and there are 150 correctional staff who work there. One of the things that I was really conscious of, with this decision in working through this process, was to make sure that every person who works at the Adelaide Remand Centre could, if they so choose, stay within the public corrections system.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay, so 150—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Let me finish. That was 150 workers, and I was intent on making sure that they could stay in the public system in metropolitan Adelaide. On the day of the budget, I actually went to the Adelaide Remand Centre and spoke to them all and made that abundantly clear at every opportunity I had. I will take this opportunity as well to make it really clear that every person who works at the Adelaide Remand Centre can stay working in the department of corrections, in the public system, if they so choose. The options that were put to them were that they could—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The CHAIR: The minister is completely in line.

Mr ODENWALDER: He is answering a different question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, let me finish, please. What they could do was—

Mr ODENWALDER: I have three minutes left.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I need to finish this question and you are wasting my time.

The CHAIR: You are wasting time by interrupting.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. What they could do was be guaranteed their job in the public corrections system, either at the new Northfield precinct where the 310 extra beds are going, which I have already discussed, or, if they chose, they could go into the regions. They might want to work in Port Lincoln or Murray Bridge or somewhere else in the regions, such as Port Augusta. They also had the option, if they so chose, to apply for a job at the Adelaide Remand Centre, with a new provider, or go into community corrections. The department has been doing a great job in working with those people right the way through, and will continue to do so, to take them on that journey.

That was a big part of the reason that I chose the Remand Centre. The Remand Centre was chosen because I specifically was very keen to make sure that we had a quantum and a size that we could absorb back into the public corrections system so that their jobs were guaranteed and they could stay working in the public corrections system.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given that you are acting on advice from the department—I think we have established that and that it was not your idea—can you categorically rule out privatising any other prisons or any other aspect of the corrections system?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We will not need to with our Better Prisons project. That is exactly why we—

Mr ODENWALDER: So you are ruling it out.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is exactly why we—

Mr ODENWALDER: You are ruling it out.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I can finish, please. That is why we are delivering the Better Prisons program. Also, the start of your question was comment and probably a little bit over the top. I have talked about our Better Prisons project and the elements of that.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I can finish, again.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, there is no need to interrupt the minister. This was not your question.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you have been so well behaved for the last hour. I would hate for you to start off the next hour on a bad foot.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I was saying before I was interrupted, there will be no need to. Our Better Prisons program will deliver outstanding prisons for South Australia when we deliver on all the elements that we have before us, and they are the outsourcing of the management of the Adelaide Remand Centre; the 310 new beds at the Northfield site, which will invest $200 million back into the public prison system; benchmarking; and also the flexible workforce. If we deliver that Better Prisons project, we will not need to.

The CHAIR: Alas, time has expired and I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio Correctional Services and the estimate of payments for the Department for Correctional Services completed.