CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (PAROLE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2008. Page 931.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:22): The member for Mitchell has introduced a bill to amend parole for those who are convicted of violent offences. The purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to require people who are convicted of violent offences to front the Parole Board to justify why they should be granted parole. The house will recall that the Liberal Party went to the last election with a broader policy of parole reform, but it certainly would have encompassed this particular parole reform. The Liberal Party is supporting this particular measure and congratulates the member for Mitchell on bringing it before the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:23): I have the right speech here. I am still not sure that I had made that previous speech, but I will check that out later on.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am still confused about that last matter but, anyway, we will sort it. I thought I had the right speech and that I had not made that contribution before. In relation to what the member for Davenport has just said, members on this side of the house are more than happy to support this bill, and we commend the member for Mitchell for bringing it before the house. The bill relates to the abolition of automatic parole for prisoners serving a period of imprisonment of less than five years as a result of committing a violent crime. Currently, as legislated in the Correctional Services Act 1982, the Parole Board must grant parole to a prisoner who is serving a total imprisonment period of less than five years unless the prisoner's sentence relates to a sexual offence.

I find it quite ridiculous—and, I think, most South Australians do—that someone who commits a serious crime does not have to serve the full prison term handed down. Under this bill, an offence of personal violence is defined as follows:

an offence against the person as outlined in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, for example:

murder, assault, causing death by dangerous driving, stalking; or

home invasion; or

robbery; or

an offence in which the offender uses or threatens to use violence.

Surely it makes sense, and the community expects, that prisoners serving time for a violent crime will serve their total sentence. Do the crime, do the time.

In The Advertiser recently an article appeared about a man who killed his mate in a drunken high speed crash. His blood alcohol level was at least .16, and he had driven at speeds of up to 180 km/h prior to the crash. The man was gaoled for a total of three years and four months and will be eligible for automatic release on parole after serving two years and eight months behind bars. This is not an isolated case. On any given day one can pick up the paper and read about a criminal who has committed a violent crime and who is eligible to be released much earlier than the gaol sentence handed down by a judge.

I am pleased that this legislation has come before the house. South Australians deserve to feel safe and not be anxious that those committing violent crimes will not have to do their time. Members on this side of the house consider that automatic parole should be abolished for all prisoners in order to protect our communities and to show criminals that, if they commit the crime, they have to do the time, and that they will not be released until they have served their prison sentence in full.

Again, I support what the member for Davenport said, and we also support the member for Mitchell. We support the bill.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (11:25): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Mr Venning: Let's put it to the vote.

The house divided on the motion:

Majority of 10 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.