House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Correctional Services (Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Funds) Amendment Bill CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (PRISONER COMPENSATION QUARANTINE FUNDS) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:53): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Correctional Services Act 1982. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:54): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is the second version of a bill I put to the house in September 2008. On that occasion I introduced a bill that sought to provide a system in South Australia whereby victims of crime could be notified when a prisoner has been paid money by the state for damages for injuries that occurred within the prison system; the victim of crime, having been notified that that prisoner had received money from the state under those circumstances, could then seek payment as a victim of crime. That way, there would be more money going to victims and less money going to offenders. The model I put up in 2008 was based on the successful New South Wales model. The then attorney-general called me into a meeting at his office and, although he was not at the meeting personally, his chief of staff on his behalf indicated support for the principle. Parliamentary counsel and others were there, and there was an agreement that the government would bring back amendments, to which I agreed so that the matter could be progressed. As of November 2010, nothing has been heard since and there has been a change of Attorney-General. At that meeting, the government expressed the view that the preferred model from the government's point of view was the Victorian model which, in the government's view, is a less administratively complex and less costly system to implement. So, this bill reflects the Victorian system rather than the New South Wales system. I am giving the government its own suggestion, if you like, even though I said I was happy to accept the amendments that the government suggested back in 2008. Members of the community may think there is not a lot of money paid to prisoners by the government for injuries that occur within the prison system. In preparation for the 2008 bill, a freedom of information application revealed that, in the previous six years, about $250,000 was paid to prisoners in the state prison system. In my view, that money should be available to the victims of those prisoners' crimes. This is not a new idea. There is a similar system in New South Wales, Victoria, New Zealand, and certainly it has been debated in the Queensland parliament. I am not sure whether it has been passed, but certainly legislation has been introduced into the Queensland parliament. The concept of the bill is very simple. If a prisoner is injured in a state prison and they receive a compensation payment for damages from the state, the victim of that prisoner's crime is contacted and they have a prescribed time to make a claim, if they are interested in making a claim. It then goes through an administrative process, and they may or may not, depending on the circumstances, get access to part or all of that damages claim. The principle of the bill is very simple: the opposition wants to give less money to the offenders and more money to the victims. Why the government has delayed this through inaction for two years is a mystery to me, but the opposition is always glad to stick up for victims' rights and for more money for victims. I hope the government can see its way clear to support the bill. It was the preferred model back in 2008, it has had two years to think about it, and it should not be beyond the wit of the government to support this particular bill. With those few comments, I look forward to a debate—and a vote—at some time in the near future. Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Geraghty.