CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 4148.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:58): What is most concerning is that the most logical people to be consulted would be, first, the Law Society of South Australia; secondly, the SA Bar Association; and, thirdly, and most obviously, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.

As most members in this house would understand these are the very people who have a direct interest in those who are incarcerated in this state and they have often represented them. The profile of those who are in our prisons, sadly, reflect a very high over-representation of members of the indigenous community—in both our juvenile and adult prisons. That is a disturbing feature in itself.

As one who sat on the juvenile justice inquiry of this parliament, chaired by the Hon. Bob Such, and having read reports over the past 20 years on juvenile justice, it is a very disturbing statistic to see that the overwhelming majority of people in our prison system are young, poor and black. That is a reality. So, it stuns me beyond belief that the very people who you think would be consulted when it came to the management of those in prisons were not.

Again, I should refer to the profile of those who are in a number of our country prisons, and Port Augusta is one that comes to mind immediately, and there is Port Lincoln, where there are significant numbers of Aboriginal people in prison. You would think that the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement would be one of the first groups of people to be consulted in relation to reform of the Correctional Services Act.

What I am told by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement is that over, I think, some period in 2007 there was consultation in relation to review of the act and that, in fact, they had put a very lengthy submission to the government. It may have predated the appointment of the current minister but it was a very lengthy submission, I understand, in which they outlined a number of concerns that they had in relation to the Correctional Services Act 1982 and areas of improvement and reform that they thought were important.

We have not yet had the opportunity to sit down with them, but I have a bit of a précis about what they have seen in this legislation since we sent it to them and drew their attention to a number of aspects of it, and they have repeated a number of concerns, some of which apparently were outlined in this submission that was put back in 2007.

Why were these people first and foremost not involved in the stakeholder briefing at the very least? It is possible now that we have made that inquiry that, if we were to go back to Mr Severin and ascertain from him whether in fact they had been invited to the stakeholders' meeting, they may well have received an invitation and even been sent a copy of the bill. I do not know whether they had been sent a copy of the bill at that stage.

It is a bit like déjà vu, because this week I have been debating another piece of legislation which relates to the question of whether we should brand recidivist young offenders as such and impose upon them a new formula of penalty, and it disturbed me greatly, given that we were again dealing with a profile of young prisoners, that there appeared to be no decent consultation with the very people who actually represent so many of these young children. Here we are talking about children and adults, so it is very concerning.

If they were invited and if they were sent the bill, that is one thing. However, in that instance, we then found out that they had been sent the bill, but that when government representatives inquired, having had no response in relation to the recidivist young offender legislation, it transpired that the solicitor in that organisation who normally deals with the submissions on a bill that may be put to the government was actually away on leave or on holidays, or somewhere. Notwithstanding that the government was advised of that, without even waiting for his return, the government proceeded with the debate on this matter without that information.

I am staggered beyond belief that the very people, who have not to just represent these people but pick up the pieces after repeat representations of these people and often their families, were not right there in the room at this consultation. In any event, they did not turn up to the presentation, but I have at least had an opportunity to raise this matter with one of the representatives of the ALRM who is legally trained.

I do not know his full experience, but he is employed as a solicitor with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and he has made some very sobering comments about this bill. In particular, when we pointed out that there was a proposal to extend the penalties or punishment regimes under the guise of 'remove impediments that impact on effective custodial management' of the minister, he was alarmed and very concerned to put some submissions to me.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You should take up their cause.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am certainly going to be outlining a number of them which the minister will be riveted in his seat to listen to, I am sure.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Every time you speak, I am riveted.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am pleased by that, minister. There is another category here which I have not heard from at all, and that is the youth representatives—the youth council and the like.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It's about adult prisoners.

Ms CHAPMAN: We are also making amendments to—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, well, we will get to the committee stage in due course. The minister said in the parliament that this was a bill to amend the Correctional Services Act 1982 (which concerns adults) and to make related amendments to the Young Offenders Act 1993 and the Youth Court Act 1993, and they relate to children. I am sure the minister is aware of that, but it might have slipped his mind. As long as he is reminded of that, he will be able to follow the arguments that I wish to put to the parliament.

It is again concerning that younger youth advocates have neither attended the presentation or presented any submission. We are still awaiting a submission from the Law Society and the South Australian Bar Association. When I spoke to an eminent Queen's Counsel—that is criminal counsel in South Australia—he said to me, 'I'm a member of the committee in relation to criminal law reform, Vickie, and I certainly haven't seen this bill. If you tell me—as you have been told during the briefing—that there's an extension of the punishments that are going to be available under this bill and that is to include solitary confinement, or what we now call management units in modern language, that is a concern, and I would really want to look at that legislation.' So, I have sent it to him and I expect his committee to look at it.

I listened attentively when the minister gave his second reading explanation in the parliament, but he jumped quickly to incorporate the rest in Hansard without reading it, or something to that effect, so I was not able to hear it all at the time. However, after reading it, it did not illuminate me as to what was actually going to be put in there in relation to penalty. That was not until I had the meeting with Mr Severin, who was able to actually shine a light on the full extent of what was there.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: There was a Liberal Party campaign called 'turn the lights on'.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; it was called, Turn on the Lights. We won it actually. It was in 1975 for the Fraser administration.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I thought that was 1984.

Ms CHAPMAN: No; it was 1975. Perhaps the minister was still at primary school at that stage. The Turn on the Lights campaign was a very successful Liberal campaign, where we thrashed poor old Mr Whitlam, who I think had a two year and 10 month prime ministership. I do not want to be distracted again because, as interesting as that political history is, I want to get back to the correctional services legislation.

Mr Severin's briefing provided me with the following. First, he said that this was legislation which had largely emanated from his department. There is no question that he is in a position to have a very comprehensive understanding of the prison system in South Australia. As I said, we have the legislation to protect prisoners and to regulate the management of people who are kept in all our correctional institutions in South Australia. I have recounted his areas of expertise and experience to date.

Mr Severin started by saying that the bill would abolish community service committees. Community service committees relate to the fact that we have community service orders. It is a sentencing option for offenders, which includes the opportunity for the judicial officer to order that an offender, once convicted, undertake certain hours of community service. It is usually a number of hours or days over a period of time, where they are obliged to report and undertake the service as a means of correction and, hopefully, rehabilitation. It is a form of punishment in a form which hopefully is productive for all concerned—for the prisoner, the offender and also for the community.

I am advised that currently the correctional services officers in his department consult with local councils and non-government organisations to find out what work needs to be done. This might cover rubbish removal, cleaning up riverbanks, tidying up areas in public spaces such as the Monarto Zoo, and the removal of graffiti. These are duties that can be identified, put into a program and undertaken. Largely, this relies on having enough funding allocated to supervise the offenders doing this work.

He further advised that the government had significantly increased funding, I assume to be in the recent budget, to remove graffiti as a specific program in the northern and southern suburbs in locations identified by local councils. There is plenty of work available; I suppose that is common knowledge. However, across the state it is fair to say that in some areas, such as Murray Bridge, there are not enough programs or work to be done. Perhaps the collapse of the riverbanks is one of the things that could attract a community service order program.

Recently, I visited Murray Bridge for a shadow cabinet meeting and attended the Murray Bridge court. That seems to be consistent with what I was informed at the briefing, that there are offences for which it would be beneficial, on the face of it, for community service orders to be made, but that there is a lack of specific programs available.

Mount Gambier is a region in South Australia that has quite a unique program relative to other regions in the state. It is the forestry capital of the state. My understanding is that the department is active in dealing with local forestry companies for the clean-up after trees have been felled in forests, when they knock the branches off. I do not know a lot about forestry. I see them; I have a whole lot of forest next door to a property I have Kangaroo Island. They seem to dump all their branches off into the forest, and they leave them there. I am assuming, from the information that we received from Mr Severin, that in Mount Gambier there is a program where offenders provide assistance by doing some of this clean-up, presumably reducing the fuel load in those forest regions. All of that sounds good.

Coming back to the bill, it is now common practice that departmental officers deal with local councils and the NGOs, and they work out what needs to be done in a region and they get on with it. It seems that they bypass the community service committees. Hence, Mr Severin advised that they are superfluous (I think, reading between the lines of what the minister outlined in his second reading contribution), we do not need these any more, and they do not do anything useful. What became clear in the course of the consultation—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: This was a very long consultation, let me tell you, for which I was very appreciative. These community service committees were introduced as part of the law to ensure a number of things, one of which was that jobs would not be taken away from the private sector. That was put in the legislation. Therefore, one of the specific tasks of these committees was to consult with private businesses and make sure that there was no overlap.

As the minister well knows, whether it be creating deck chairs or putting together and assembling knock-down furniture that is imported into Australia, this is the type of work that is undertaken in our prisons, because it is agreed in the private sector and in consultation with the unions, quite properly, that this work can be undertaken by prisoners without any adverse economic impact on private enterprise and employment opportunities in the general community. We understand the principle of that.

The community service administration, under the Correctional Services Act 1982, specifically provided for a Community Service Advisory Committee and these community service committees, essentially, sit under it. They had to have certain people from the community on them, including a representative of the United Trades and Labor Council, a person nominated by the chief executive officer, etc. I am sure the minister is very familiar with that.

One of its specific tasks, as I said, was to be a voice for the private sector. What was being presented was that the departmental officers do this now. 'We worked that out. We discussed it with the local councils and we just decided what you need for a community service order. We know what is going on out there. The local government officer tells us.' One bureaucrat tells another bureaucrat what is occurring and everything is rosy.

In fact, it then transpires that it is not that these community service committees have been functional or operational, because it seems that they have not even been appointed during the lifetime of this government. For the last six or seven years, we have not had any of them. That pre- dates the chief officer's transfer to South Australia.

I was a little puzzled at what seemed to be, on the face of it, an inconsistency; that is, these community service committees which have a direct function under the act were purportedly no longer required because other people were doing that now. Then we find out that it is not that they are inefficient, not doing their job or superfluous: they are not even filled. They are not even out there. They have not been established and appointed even for the purpose of consultation. What a backdoor way of getting rid of community consultation. It is concerning—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Backdoor? I am in the parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister interjects to express his disquiet about my referring to it as 'backdoor'. He did not say anything about this in his second reading contribution; that is, for six or seven years under this government there has been no reappointment of these committees since the previous government. They do not even exist, yet there is a statutory obligation under the act for them to exist and to give advice.

I have no reason to believe that Mr Severin would be giving me any indication otherwise, because obviously they do not exist at all anyway, so he probably has nothing to compare it with.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: If you are wrong, will you apologise?

Ms CHAPMAN: He has told me that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: If you are wrong, will you apologise?

Ms CHAPMAN: What he has said is—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: If you are wrong, will you apologise?

Ms CHAPMAN: If I am wrong on what, minister?

Mr PENGILLY: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 131.

The SPEAKER: The minister should not interrupt the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. The government claims that they are no longer necessary. We now know that they do not even exist; they are not even operating. Irrespective of whether they could be assessed as being useful or useless, from our consultation to date we have been informed that, in fact, on occasions when they did operate previously, they were very useful. Let me give an example of what we have been advised. During the 1990s, when these committees were still alive and still appointed—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The 1990s, that's 20 years ago.

Ms CHAPMAN: Your government has been there for seven years and obviously not used them.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The 1990s are a long time ago.

Ms CHAPMAN: During the late 1990s, are you happy with that? We have been informed that when these committees were operational and their functions were being undertaken, a committee consulted with senior magistrate Grant Harris, who was a magistrate who went regularly to the West Coast and Ceduna courts. As part of the protocol, he would meet with the local community service committee, which comprised all those people provided for in the act. There would be a discussion about any community service work that was available and, obviously, this magistrate would adjudicate on matters in court and, where appropriate, make orders.

I am told that what was good about this interaction—which might be being thrown away by this amendment—was that there was a significant benefit in the race relations issue, bearing in mind that this court, from which community orders would flow, has jurisdiction for criminal matters in a number of indigenous areas.

I have named one magistrate who was a regular visiting magistrate at that time, and I am advised that a productive benefit was gained from it. I would not expect the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Correctional Services to appreciate all this benefit because he was not participating in it. It is important, minister, as you have responsibility for this, that you not just look at what is inconvenient or a nuisance or an embarrassment because you have to disclose that you have not done anything about this for seven years. It is not enough to say, 'We will get rid of this because, in any event, someone in the department can do this.'

Someone in a department can do a lot of things, but the benefit of a forum which enables regular community consultation is important, so that you, minister, ultimately through the Community Service Advisory Committee, on which you have a representative from the community services committees, do not receive a narrow base of advice. Good as it might be from the department, it is not confined to that; you will have community input.

Minister, because it is your responsibility to this parliament and the government to make sure that the implementation of this act is carried out and prisoners are responsibly regulated and managed according to those obligations, it would be seen as an opportunity to have valued input from the community rather than its being dismissed because it is a pest, a nuisance and unnecessary and people in the department can do it anyway. That is not the exercise; the exercise is the benefit which is clearly outlined in the act.

I indicate that I express concern about the abolition of a process which, at least on the information we have received to date, had some benefit when it was operational and which needs to be reviewed. If there is a major cost attached to its maintenance, we are happy to hear about it, but I did not see in the minister's second reading explanation any reference to the importance of a necessary financial saving. So, in those circumstances I ask that it be reviewed.

The second aspect is the qualification of visiting inspectors and the opportunity for the appointment of persons who are not justices of the peace. I am informed that, at present, only a justice of the peace with that appointment can act as a visiting inspector of prisons. We have a system in South Australia of visiting JPs, which is provided for in the act as a little security and a watchdog in the supervision of prisons, bearing in mind that that population is vulnerable to the extent that they are often not in a position to represent themselves.

Some would say that it is a toothless tiger regime; therefore, if that is the case, it is probably academic whether they are JPs or not. If they do not have some teeth in the recommendation they make, and they do not have any guidelines upon which to assess whether the standards in the prison are up to scratch, or there is no process whereby they can be dealt with, other than refer it to the minister, one wonders how useful they are anyway.

We are told that the purpose of the amendment is to expand the opportunity for others to become visiting inspectors under the South Australian regime. Instead of the requirement for a JP qualification, the minister can appoint anyone he considers suitable, whatever that means. In the bill before us, I note that there appears to be no definition of or a guideline for 'suitable'.

There is some case law on the common meaning and expected interpretation of words such as 'reasonable' and 'suitable', but there is nothing in the bill that gives any guidance to the minister or the people who will be putting in an application to become a visiting inspector on whether they would be accepted. The process is one whereby the minister makes the nomination (and obviously it will be gazetted) and the person is appointed.

I was advised at the briefing that perhaps it might be open to retired public servants or people who have some management or administrative experience, and they may well be well-suited to this job. I am not criticising that, but I alert the parliament and hope that the minister gives some consideration to how weak the visiting inspector program is in this state. Changing the personnel and their qualifications when they have no effective power or guidelines within which to operate seems like moving the chairs on the Titanic: it does not resolve the major issue of impending disaster, nor does it effectively create a structure to ensure that we protect prisoners and deal with the disciplinary breaches of prisoners.

I am told that Queensland (where Mr Severin worked at a high level in corrections) has a two tier system. A Justice of the Peace is employed to deal with the disciplinary breaches of prisoners, and another group, called Official Visitors, check that procedures are in order, etc. That may have some merit as well, but what is being proposed here is open slather for anybody to do this job who is considered suitable by the minister.

I should place on the record the fact that the current legislation requires every prison to be regularly inspected, and we use these visiting inspectors to do that. I am told that as a matter of practice this occurs at least once a week and that there are some 40-odd justices of the peace who form a pool of people who are available to undertake this work around the state. This is a voluntary service that they contribute, and they visit the institutions and undertakes these inspections.

In larger prisons I understand that several inspectors might go along and undertake the inspections each week; they look at different areas and report back. I think there is some small remuneration or honorarium or some kind of expenses allowance, but otherwise they are not paid for this work, and we value their contribution. There are another four or five visiting judges who are the justices of the peace who deal with the disciplinary breaches by prisoners.

Members in this house who read the Ombudsman's report each year will see that, notwithstanding the relatively small number of prisoners who reside in our correctional institutions in this state, they are very active when it comes to two things, and one is registering complaints with the Ombudsman, where they form overwhelmingly the largest number of complaints in the Ombudsman's report each year, many of which are found to be without any real foundation for complaint, some of which are investigated and resolved and some of which are investigated and there is found to have been a significant breach. They are often referred to in the Ombudsman's, report, and I will refer to them in this debate.

For the purposes of the prison inspection regime, they are not only active in that area but they also seem to get into a bit of trouble from time to time from their behaviour in the prisons, and the JPs are there to sort out disputes between prisoners, for example, and breach of the rules of their accommodation. So we thank them all for their service.

Can I say that one of the stakeholders we have consulted with has apparently raised a matter with the government already, but it has been ignored, sadly, because I think there is some merit in it and I would like the government to consider it, that is, the possibility of having a specific inspector of custodial or correctional services, as applies in Western Australia. Instead of just having this team of volunteers under the current structure, which is to have its qualifications changed by this amendment, what the government ought to be doing is considering the legislative appointment of an inspector of custodial services.

My understanding is that a report has been prepared by the current inspector for Western Australia and is under consideration at a national level. This may not be correct, but I have noted that apparently the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture is under consideration at a national level and that, if this is actually signed up to in due course, to ensure that there is proper supervision of what happens in prisons, one of the matters to be considered is that every jurisdiction will be required to appoint an inspector and that that person will have a function and responsibility to operate at, if I could say, a more professional level.

So, under this bill, in South Australia we seem to be going in exactly the reverse direction. If that is not right I invite the minister to come forward and indicate if there is a different approach happening at the national level. However, it seems that we are going the other way in that we are going to be giving a job to different volunteers who have, on the face of it, lesser qualifications while the rest of the world or at least the Australian jurisdictions are moving in another direction.

The second aspect of which I have been advised and which, again, I understand is being presented to the government but appears to have been dismissed or ignored or at least not agreed with and taken up in this bill, is that there are no identified criteria that our current teams who go into prisons have as a guide to what is acceptable in the standards that operate or are supposed to operate in prisons.

Being advised of this, I had a look at the Western Australian situation, which is available on the website of the Office of Inspector of Custodial Services, if anyone wishes to view it. The version as at 19 April 2007 has a code of inspection standards for adult custodial services. The website sets out the guidelines for the purposes of inspectors to use. It covers a number of areas including the processes that should occur at the time of reception and admission, the rules that are applied for remanding prisoners, the obligations in respect of orientation and custodial infrastructure. I assume that is an entitlement to have a bed and a shower. I am not sure as I have not gone into the detail of all that.

There are a lot of rules, and one of them is on the question of punishment. I will refer to this because there are some aspects of punishment which we are going to be asked to consider and approve in this bill and, as I have already indicated, I have some concerns about that. The punishment guidelines that apply in Western Australia, for example, state as follows:

A prisoner may only be punished for a disciplinary offence following a properly constituted adjudication process. Any punishment imposed must be prescribed in law and be just and proportionate to the offence.

Secondary punishment, additional to the sentence of imprisonment, should be commensurate with the offence or rule breach. The use of solitary confinement or segregation must be strictly regulated. No prisoner may be employed in any disciplinary capacity. This is not intended to preclude the proper functioning of systems based on self-management whereby selected prisoners may be entrusted to supervise libraries or to exercise some limited authority with regard to groups of prisoners undertaking social, educational, sporting and work activities.

However, where prisoners are in such positions, staff must exercise vigilance to ensure that prisoners do not abuse or misuse the power and trust inherent [in] these positions. A prisoner should not be punished, except in accordance with the terms of such law, regulation or rule relating to prisoners' behaviour.

A prisoner who is under punishment should be provided with information concerning the duration and nature of the punishment. Prolonged solitary confinement, corporal punishment, punishment by placement in a dark cell, reduction of diet, sensory deprivation and all cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments should not be used.

Every prisoner who is placed in segregation as a punishment should be visited daily by a member of the prison management and, as frequently as practicable, preferably daily, by a representative of the medical officer. The medical officer or their representative should advise the house in charge of the prison if they consider the termination or alteration of the segregation is necessary on grounds of physical or mental health.

Every prisoner who is placed in segregation must be able to exercise in the open air for at least two hours every day. In this regard, the space made available should be large enough to enable the prisoner to have a meaningful exercise.

I think members will get the gist of what I am saying. There are very clear guidelines set out; they operate as, obviously, a helpful, useful tool for those who undertake the inspection processes in Western Australia. They have the security and benefit of having someone who has a position responsible, under the act, known as the visiting inspector, and everyone knows what they are doing.

In light of the apparent move nationally and the already successful experience in Western Australia and the government's indication through this bill that it is effectively going to water down the volunteer system in the sense of qualifications—that is not a reflection on any of those who might apply for the job—they are still left ignorant of any guidelines to operate, and what we should be doing today is strengthening the visitor program and the inspectorate of any custodial service in this state.

It is possible—and I raise this because of my own personal experience—that the government has considered this recommendation and totally rejected it. I say that because, when we dealt with the Mental Health Bill earlier this year and late last year, the opposition recommended a proposed visitor scheme to mental health facilities in this state which would provide for inspection and access and an opportunity to interview and receive submissions (both orally and in writing) from patients who were detained in a mental health institution.

We thought that this was worthy of consideration and we looked at how a similar scheme had operated in Victoria. The state government here utterly rejected it. After some months, and effectively facing a situation where the bill would not pass unless there was some resolution to this issue, begrudgingly the government accepted it.

It would not surprise me, therefore, if the minister had given some consideration to an inspector of prisons regime similar to that in Western Australia, because of the government's absolutely implacable attitude of rejecting what was a workable, effective and beneficial system prevailing in mental health institutions in Victoria which ultimately, begrudgingly, it had to accept to get the bill through.

If I am wrong and the minister, in fact, has never heard of this system in Western Australia, or for whatever reason has not been briefed on the recommendation in this instance by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and if he has not been able to listen attentively to all of my contribution today, I hope he will peruse the Hansard and have a good look at this before the conclusion of the debate and between the houses.

The next matter that I wish to address is prisoner assessment committees. My understanding from the minister's second reading explanation and from viewing the Correctional Services Act is that, at present, where prisoners are facing a change of classification or placement, this assessment is done by a committee of prison staff and case managers—a multidisciplinary approach, which seems logical in itself. Presumably, you have correctional services officers; you might have someone who is attending to counselling in the prison department; a social worker; maybe a psychologist—I do not know what the qualifications are, but my understanding is that it is a multidisciplinary approach.

When a prisoner comes under assessment for a change of classification, I assume that it means from a high security classification to a different level of security, or from one prison camp to another. It may be that they have a drug and alcohol addiction and the committee considers that it would be beneficial for the prisoner to be transferred to another location, another campus, where a program would be available for the prisoner to receive rehabilitation, relief or be able to advance the management of that condition. So, this committee gets together and consideration is given to where the prisoner may be placed or reclassified; that then goes up the ranks to those in the hierarchy—I am not quite sure where it goes from there—and it is then actioned.

The act only provides for a single committee. My understanding is that there has been some question as to the validity of the operation of the current structure. The act does not make provision for multidisciplinary committees and the structure as it is currently operating in practice. This is uncontroversial, as I understand it. This proposed amendment to enable more than one prisoner assessment committee would give the professionals working around the prisoner the opportunity to amalgamate in different committees and carry out their duty without fear of being in breach of the legislation. I indicate to the house that I will certainly recommend to the opposition that that aspect of the bill be supported.

Parole conditions for prisoners given early release is a technicality in the bill which has been brought to the attention of the government by the Chair of the Parole Board, Frances Nelson QC. Prisoners are obliged to comply with the conditions of parole that operate from the original release date, even if the chief executive officer—who has a special power to give early release—allows that prisoner to be released a little earlier.

My understanding is that, if a prisoner were due for release on a Sunday, for example, it is within the powers of the chief executive officer to issue an order which enables the prisoner to be released on the Friday—that is, an earlier release date. What has been explained to us and I understand brought to the attention of the government by Frances Nelson QC is that, when that occurs, the obligation to comply with the conditions of the parole, which has been issued by the Parole Board, still takes effect from the Sunday. That would mean that, technically, there would be no obligation for the released prisoner to comply with any of those parole conditions until the Sunday. That would make a mockery of it, and I suppose one practical way around it is not to allow the prisoner to go until the Sunday.

My understanding is that, as a matter of practice, they have been let out on a Friday, probably because the prisoners have no idea that they are not technically bound by the conditions of the parole between Friday and Sunday. They have not attempted to abuse that technicality and think, 'Well, I can just ignore those conditions; I can do what I like'—ignorance being quite helpful, probably, in those circumstances.

I am told that it is important for us to continue to give the chief executive the opportunity to give early release. It is only for a short period that he is able to do that. For example, sometimes it is impractical for a prisoner to be released on a Sunday. There may not be any public transport available and there may not be access to services that give advice on budgeting, accommodation or pension entitlements, the Centrelink office would not be open, etc., so there is a vacuum in the accessibility to services by a prisoner.

It is in the prisoner's interests, and it is also sometimes an opportunity for family members or people who are coming forward to offer extended support to assist that person to be available to receive the prisoner and support them on a working day, and it would make it more practical for everyone concerned. The opposition in no way suggests that the other way to deal with this is not to have early release.

On the information we have been provided, I again indicate that I will be recommending to the opposition spokesperson, the shadow minister for correctional services, the member for Finniss, that he recommend to the party room that that be supported, that we thank Frances Nelson QC for bringing it to the attention of the parliament, and that we will endeavour to support the government to remedy that promptly.

It was brought to my attention during the consultation we have had to date that the drafting of the clause to facilitate this obligation to comply with parole conditions was somewhat sloppy. I think 'badly drafted' was the information given to us. I refer to division 7, section 38—release of a prisoner from prison or home detention. Clause 13 provides:

(3a) If—

(a) the board orders the release of a prisoner from prison or home detention or parole on a specified date; and

(b) pursuant to subsection (2) the Chief Executive Officer authorises the release of the prisoner before that specified date,

the release of the prisoner on the authority of the Chief Executive Officer will be on parole subject to the conditions imposed under this act.

Notwithstanding the submission that I have received, I think it is clumsily drafted. I would not go so far as to say that it is badly drafted. I remember reading it in the first instance and inquiring as to what on earth it meant, because it does not seem to be clear. I know that we are into drafting in plain English, but I hope the minister is happy to look at it to see whether there might be a better way of expressing it so that, if it is absolutely clear to the prisoner who is about to be put on parole, the Parole Board and the chief executive, everyone will be happy.

The next matter is the chief executive's expanded power regarding the use of detention units or, in language of the past, solitary confinement. In this regard, I am referring to the proposal that will remove the minister from the picture—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's your dream.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not talking about having him rubbed out. I hadn't thought of that. That prospect has made me feel quite cheerful. For the purpose of this legislation, under the Correctional Services Act, the minister has a very important role as the supervisor, I suppose, of all occasions when prisoners are isolated from other prisoners and put into some kind of unit. I think they are called management units now. There are many reasons why prisoners (and sometimes even patients in hospitals) are isolated. Sometimes it is to protect the prisoner.

If members were to visit the Yatala facility of our correctional institutions, which is for adult males, they could view an area that has individual cells for the secure incarceration of some of our most serious, long-term offenders. They are kept quite separate physically and geographically from other prisoners on the site. I do not think I need to go into the merits of it, but there are very good reasons why these prisoners are kept totally separate; sometimes it is because they have committed heinous offences, which might attract behaviour that would be life threatening to the subject prisoner; that is, to protect them from other prisoners who consider the offences for which they have been convicted so horrendous that they need protection.

I am not sure whether this is the current position, but on previous occasions when I have visited prison it has been my experience that the profiles of some of these prisoners include child sex offences, gruesome assaults against other adults or foul conduct towards a fellow human being which is so reprehensible that, under the code of hierarchy in prisons, even other prisoners do not want to be with them and are prepared to exact their own expression of disgust toward those prisoners. The state has an obligation to protect the prisoner in that circumstance, and sometimes, for their own safety, they are kept in isolation.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]

Ms CHAPMAN: I was explaining the circumstances in which a prisoner might be in isolation. There might be permanent accommodation of a prisoner in a separate physical and geographical area in a prison, and I have just highlighted an example to the house.

There are other situations where, in the general management of the prison, it is necessary to isolate a prisoner during the course of their normal activity. I am told that in the event of a riot in the prison—and we have this from time to time—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: A serious incident.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I am sorry, that is what the new language is. I seem to recall the minister providing a report to the parliament relatively recently, subsequent to an inquiry undertaken in respect of the Port Augusta serious incident, which occurred under the watch of his predecessor.

It would not be unreasonable in that situation, at least in the finalising of the situation, for prisoners to be placed in isolation from other prisoners, and in some circumstances be put into solitary isolation, not as a means of punishment but, rather, as a means of management. It may be that, because part of the prison has become insecure or been burnt down, damaged or flooded, there needs to be some management of prisoners pending either evacuation or relocation on the campus. There are a number of situations from time to time when that could occur. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.