THINKERS IN RESIDENCE

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (15:27): Thank you, ma'am. How nice it will be to talk about something important in here. I wish to address the topic of the Thinkers in Residence.

Members interjecting:

Ms THOMPSON: It amazes me that, again, we hear derision from the opposition to the topic of the Thinkers in Residence. Members opposite seem to take every opportunity they can to deride this important program—perhaps it was because they did not think of it. However, I want to draw the attention of the house today to the report of a recent Thinker in Residence, Judge Peggy Fulton Hora, and the topic 'smart justice'. Yes, I am just pausing in light of more derision coming from the other side. I do not like to talk—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the members on my left not to deride. I will admit, member for Reynell, that I did not quite absorb the nature of the derision. Carry on, and we shall watch them carefully.

Ms THOMPSON: We will carry on; yes, indeed. Madam, during her visit here, Judge Peggy Hora consulted with 66 various individuals and groups. That means that she was talking to 66 eminent persons and ordinary persons about the need for us to rethink our concept of justice, and to the fact that we need, as she says, to think about smart justice rather than tough justice, and that we need to evaluate what is happening in our justice system to reduce recidivism and to ensure that we live in a safer community.

Not only does she look at the safety of the community in general but also she treats every participant in the justice system with respect. She is eager that, just because you have been to gaol once, you should not be condemned to a life of various terms of imprisonment.

She also made 21 presentations to various organisations, again ranging from the highly academic to the community-based organisation, and she conducted 24 interviews with the media. That alone is sufficient to have this community of ours in South Australia thinking about our justice system and thinking more broadly than the knee-jerk reaction that we often get.

She has talked very extensively about topics such as the role of alcoholism and other drugs in crime and the way we need to look at who is committing crime, not just at the crimes. She suggests that it is really important to look at whether the sentence suits not only the crime but the criminal because, otherwise, all we are doing is breeding more criminals and more crime from the same individuals.

She looked carefully at the bail system and the way we currently spend a lot of our police resources on arrests for breach of bail. For instance, in 2008, there were almost 3,928 arrests for breach of bail. That involves a lot of police time. She thinks that we need to look more carefully at how we can ensure that responses to breaches of bail are immediate, certain, consistent and fair as a way to reduce breaches of bail. When people breach bail, it does not set up much of a situation for their eventual rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Judge Fulton Hora suggests that talking about driving while impaired rather than drink driving and drug driving is a more accurate description of what is actually happening. She looks at how we can improve our responses to family violence and recognises that South Australia has made important steps in extending the definition of family violence. Particularly, her concern relates to the impact that family violence has on children and the likelihood that children growing up in that situation will not grow into healthy participating members of the community.