CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 June 2009. Page 3212.)

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:05): I indicate to the house that, although I am the first speaker, the member for Bragg will be the lead speaker. The fact of the matter is that we were informed only yesterday that this bill was coming in this week; it was not scheduled to do so for a fortnight.

On Wednesday 17 June 2009, the correctional services minister introduced this bill. The proposed changes further the government's centralised policy, remove the committee and increase the management options for the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services. The government's claimed agenda of introducing an amended correctional services bill was outlined by the minister in the opening two paragraphs of his second reading explanation, when he said:

The changes proposed will make prisoners more accountable for their actions whilst the same time providing correctional authorities with more efficient prisoner management tools.

A few sections of the bill do not match the above statement given by the minister. Some of the negative issues include increasing penalties/new penalties. The last time penalties in the Correctional Services Act were amended was 1994, and I think that perhaps explains why the minister wants to update this section of the act. However, he also stated that 'amendments are proposed to ensure that the behaviour of prisoners who breach prison rules can be adequately dealt with'.

Without having a brief outline of how unacceptable behaviour will be adequately dealt with, the presumption is that it means that fines will increase and that privileges a prisoner may possess will be withdrawn. Therefore, instead of presuming, I would like to hear the minister give a full explanation of what 'adequately dealt with' means in relation to a prisoner's penalties. On further inquiry, it is noted that, along with the addition of fines and the withdrawal of privileges, solitary confinement will be included as a punishment option, and I think that this needs to be fleshed out further, especially when this bill was introduced to enforce efficient management skills.

The act already outlines isolation management units for misbehaving prisoners, and this is a successful management operational tool to this day, yet introducing solitary confinement as a form of punishment is not always suitable. I ask that the management definition of 'adequately dealt with' be outlined by the minister in due course.

Regarding visiting inspectors' qualifications and prison cell inspectors, amendments incorporated in this bill would expand the existing groups of visiting inspectors by allowing the minister or the Department for Correctional Services to choose respected members of the community or, as stated in the bill, 'suitable' community members.

The minister believes this is an important amendment to strengthen the scrutiny of our prison system. However, not once does the correctional services bill identify what a suitable community member is. What qualities or qualifications do suitable community members need to embody to be classified as visiting inspectors, and how are they to be tested? Again, I raise the above concern but, as the Minister for Correctional Services said in his second reading explanation, section 20 (Correctional institution must be inspected on a regular basis provides) as amended provides that 'prisons are required to be inspected regularly to maintain standards'.

One concern the Labor government has raised is the lack of staff or local persons eligible to be inspectors, and it therefore proposes an amendment which provides 'that this clause removes...requirements...and provides for the minister to appoint any person who is considered a suitable person as an inspector of prisons'. Specifications of 'suitable persons' need to be identified and defined; otherwise, the standards of our prisons may fall short.

In relation to separating prisoners, the current act requires that the minister review all prisoner separations. However, the minister noted in his second reading explanation:

Given the short time frame of most separations and the time...to complete the...administrative processes..., very few reports reach and are reviewed by the Minister before the separation order expires.

Therefore, the act is being amended to allow the CEO or his her delegates to approve all prisoner separations that do not exceed five days. Those exceeding five days will need consideration by the minister. The question is whether there is no other state in the South Australia where the minister has this responsibility or power.

Regarding the appointment and revocation of private service provider staff, when the Liberal Party was in government it allocated private operators access into prisons. However, a condition was put in place by the then Labor opposition that the executive council, that is, the Governor, was to approve staff appointments. Currently the selection continues to be approved by the chief executive, but now the Minister for Correctional Services wants to remove this condition, as the Labor Party views it as administratively cumbersome, which is rather interesting, considering where it has come from.

On the matter of prisoner property, already under current regulations prisoners are capable of keeping personal belongings in a locker of a specific size. This system has been described as out of date and not reflecting modern prison practice. Proposals have been made in order to allow regulations and flexibility for the management of prisoner property; however, specifications have not been acknowledged. Perhaps in due course the minister can specify exactly what regulations and flexibility will be afforded to prisoners and their property. By providing prisoners flexibility in relation to their belongings, how is this considered efficient prison management?

On the positive side are multiple committees. The present act provides that the minister may establish a committee that will assist the CEO of the Department for Correctional Services in assessing the behaviour of prisoners. We note that the current act specifies and acknowledges the legality of one community committee. I agree with the government that additional committees will enable each prison and prisoner to be individually and carefully assessed, which will result in a well rounded portfolio. The understanding is that these assessments will be carried out by prison staff and prisoner case managers and will allow each committee to have legal responsibilities in the assessment process of South Australia's prisons and prisoners.

Overall, with the deletion of duplicated sections there is not a lot of concern with some of those actions, as well as introducing multiple committees to prisons. Prison assessment committees will ensure proper management skills within a prison operation, which in the long term will be a beneficial system. I suppose it is fair to say that, given the backflip on the large Mobilong Prison just recently in the budget and yesterday's announcement on Magill, the Rann Labor government is all over the place on prisons. The Department for Correctional Services officers are under great strain trying to accommodate the numbers of prisoners that we have. Indeed, it is a far from ideal situation.

The major concern with the bill is the use of solitary confinement as a punishment option. I do not know that this is an efficient management tool in relation to prisoner penalties, especially when the use of management units which isolate prisoners has been a proven effective procedure for mismanaged prisoners, as well as using it as a form of protection for others.

A clearer explanation of a suitable person for visiting a prison cell and inspection should be a requirement, otherwise the minister will be allowing trusting persons to enter the living environment of prisoners which could lead to dangerous consequences.

It is unfortunate that we have to debate this bill today. I acknowledge that it was introduced on 17 June this year, but that is not the question. As the member for Bragg will indicate shortly, we have been undertaking a substantial amount of consultation with interested parties on this legislation that has come on today. Unfortunately, it has taken a fair while for some of these bodies to get back to us on the bill, so it is somewhat disappointing that the Liberal Party was pushed into debating this issue today and not given time to go through the process, which it would have done at the next joint party meeting prior to the next sitting week in a couple of weeks' time. It has created somewhat of a disruption in the process.

However, having said that, we are happy to debate it now. I know that there will be other contributions and amendments moved. I am thankful for the briefings that I had from Correctional Services staff this morning and I am only sorry that I was not able to get them a couple of weeks ago. I would rather have had that briefing than go through what I did, quite frankly. Having said that, we will proceed with the bill and continue the debate.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:17): May I say at the outset that I will be the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition in this matter. Further, I record my appreciation that the Deputy Premier is not the Minister for Correctional Services in South Australia and, therefore, we do not have imposed upon us (as a community, the correctional services department, its officers who are the professional people in charge, or indeed the prisoner population of South Australia and their families) the 'rack 'em, pack 'em, and stack 'em' policy which he espouses. Indeed, we as a community have the protection of the Correctional Services Act to ensure that proper process is secured and that management rules apply in our prisons.

The Minister for Correctional Services introduced this bill on 17 June 2009. It purports to streamline existing processes and maximise the use of the Department for Correctional Services' resources and 'remove the impediments that impact on effective custodial management'. That is the stated objective and it seems worthy at first blush, and it is important, particularly when we are dealing with the accommodation, security and rehabilitation of a group in the community who have not only offended but who are expected to pay the price. However, as a humane society, we have a responsibility to ensure a program of rehabilitation and humane security for those personnel.

The review, therefore, that has culminated in the miscellaneous amendments to this act, I have to say at the outset, is disappointing in that it fails to address a number of significant issues which are outstanding and which have been the subject of coronial inquiry recommendations in this state. Therefore, I will address my areas of disappointment in what I think has been an opportunity for the government to remedy and bring into effect reforms. Notwithstanding that it has chosen a narrow area of reform—some of which I find completely unacceptable, and I will outline this in due course—some of it is sensible and needs the support of the parliament.

I also say at the outset that the opposition has not formed a party position on this matter. As explained by the member for Finniss, the opposition is continuing to consult with a number of stakeholders who have expressed their concern about a number of aspects of this bill and from whom we are still awaiting some further information.

Certainly, it is noted that this bill was introduced in June and that, during the long winter break and the more recent break, work has progressed but is not complete, and for that reason the opposition has not formed a party position. However, I propose to outline a number of areas of concern, a number of other areas of omission and lost opportunity in respect of the reforms and tidying-up, even of minor matters in relation to this legislation.

May I also say that the amendments that are presented to us in this bill, I suggest, clearly reflect the government's very centralised policy on the management of our prisons and in particular the prisoners, bearing in mind that this legislation deals with both adults and children who are incarcerated.

The government's centralist approach is evidenced by reforms which include the removal of committees, the increase of management and punishment options in respect of the chief executive officer, and the exclusion, in fact, of the minister from some of this decision-making process, which we think is adverse and not in the best interests of the protection of those who are in custody.

That is not to say that there is any personal reflection on the chief executive officer who currently holds that position or that he would, in some way, act in a manner that is inconsistent with the interests of prisoners. I do not know the answer to that, but here in this parliament we do not make legislation on the assumption of the views of a particular person who might hold office. Legislation completely ignores that aspect and assumes that a person will have that responsibility, who may or may not have the same standards as the incumbent.

Therefore, to some degree, we make the decisions here based on the lowest common denominator and when we look at the checks and balances that operate in relation to any legislation where there is considerable control or management—and in this case we are talking about people whose liberty has been frozen and removed for a fixed period, or sometimes a non-fixed period, that is, they are incarcerated—it is a pretty serious matter and we need to get it right.

I suggest, in opening, that we probably have not got it right in relation to this bill, and there are a number of aspects that I will be asking the minister to review between houses. In the event that we do not conclude the debate on this second reading today, then when the parliament resumes he will have had the opportunity to consider some of these.

I also say in opening that I have viewed briefly an amendment by the government and also one that I understand has just been tabled by the member for Mitchell, and I will give some consideration to both of those. I am told in respect of the government's amendments that they are largely consequential upon other reforms that are in the bill. I will certainly have a look at those and will not hold the house up at this stage in dealing with them individually. If that is the case and they are consequential upon good substantive changes to the law, then they will have our support.

I indicate that, during the course of the consultation on this matter, the government offered, and the opposition accepted, the opportunity to have a briefing from Mr Peter Severin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Correctional Services. That was offered earlier this month and, in fact, we met on 2 September. A representative from the minister's office attended. The chief executive officer has been in South Australia for a considerable time; I think he has held the position of chief executive officer here for five or six years.

I can remember attending a public function sponsored by OARS which featured him as a guest speaker upon his early arrival in South Australia where he outlined his aspirations for the development of corrections in this state. Those aspirations were visionary, some of them were quite radical, but he certainly set down some aspects of reform which I think impressed the meeting, and he was welcomed to South Australia. Of course, he has continued in that role ever since.

I was the only member of the opposition who actually attended the briefing on 2 September, although I understand that the member for Finniss (our spokesperson on correctional services) was offered and has been provided with an extra briefing on this matter. Mr Severin provided a comprehensive information session and briefing not only on the bill but on the background of his understanding of the programs and procedures that are currently in practice and operational within the prison system. I appreciated his time and his advice on that occasion. I start from the premise that he is an expert and experienced chief executive officer in this field, and I have no reason to think otherwise.

During the course of the meeting, I was advised that the origin of the bill and its antecedents in that sense was that it had been developed from initiatives, ideas and views expressed within the Department for Correctional Services, the department being the body which provides the staff and the management and operation of most of our prisons in South Australia. There is a private contractor in the Mount Gambier Prison. I am not sure whether they practice anywhere else in South Australia. I think it is Group 4, the English company, appointed under the previous government. To my knowledge, it operates that prison and, on the information that I have, it does so quite successfully.

Essentially, the Department for Correctional Services attends to the provision of personnel to supervise and keep secure the residents of our prisons across South Australia. It is my understanding that, because this bill deals with correctional services provided across the state, it also includes children. So, I assume that, for the purposes of this bill—particularly as there are amendments proposed to the Youth Offenders Act 1993 and the Youth Court Act 1993, in addition to the Correctional Services Act 1982—we are dealing with all age groups. I should qualify that by saying that we do not incarcerate children under the age of 10, of course, because their capacity to form an intent and to be charged and convicted starts statutorily at the age of 10.

It was, therefore, a little concerning for me to hear that, in view of the comprehensive coverage of the proposed amendments to the three pieces of legislation that I have referred to, when the presentation of these amendments was made to stakeholders it was to a fairly limited group in the end, that is, those who were invited to come along and hear Mr Severin, or one of his departmental people, give a presentation to a number of stakeholders.

Those represented, as recorded, were OARS, ACOSS (I am not sure if it was an ACOSS or SACOSS representative, but it was a social services council representative of some kind), the Victim Support Service, prison chaplaincy, Anglicare and the Salvation Army, the latter two of which are non-government organisations that are quite involved with the provision of housing for prisoners upon release, those who are in home detention and the like.

All of these are worthy and appropriate stakeholders to be invited to such an occasion. But, what struck me as concerning was the apparent omission. It is possible that other people were invited and they did not attend—they did not want to turn up, they did not have a view, or whatever—but in the initial consultation that the opposition has done it has come to light that a number of stakeholders, whom we would have thought would have been obvious to be consulted, have not been, or at least invited to come along and be given a briefing and an opportunity to scrutinise the bill.

Having had the opportunity to have a briefing in recent weeks myself, and having had information made available, which, frankly, I found alarming, but to which I will refer in a moment, I have to wonder whether there was any attempt not to have broad consultation on this matter with stakeholders, who, I would have thought, would have a very strong vested interest. Let me give the parliament an example. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]