CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 June 2011.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:41): I rise to indicate that I will be the principal speaker for the opposition on the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The opposition has given careful consideration to this bill; there are many aspects of it where we endorse the reform proposed by the government, but there are some very significant aspects that we strongly oppose. So, I indicate that we will provide support for the bill conditional upon those amendments being incorporated.

I understand that the minister has not yet had a full briefing on the amendments which we have tabled and which I will be referring to, and would like some further time to consider those. We do not propose to hold up the debate; I will present them on the understanding that I appreciate the minister will want to give them further consideration and will, hopefully, see the benefit of agreeing to those amendments and incorporating them into this bill to make better law in the correctional services area.

May I start by saying that the minister announced, by a press release on 2 June this year, that he would introduce legislation to the parliament for very significant reform. Members may recall that that followed announcements by the minister on 28 September the preceding year, when he said that his government proposed to undertake consultation on reform of the parole laws and that this was a matter that had followed some very serious cases in the public domain. I will refer to one of those, in particular, which occurred in July 2009 which, I think, caused great distress to a number of people—and for good reason—and to which it was appropriate that the government give its attention regarding how that situation not be repeated.

I should say that on 28 June this year Mr Peter Severin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Correctional Services, attended—with a number of others—to provide a briefing and, in particular, to answer questions about the proposed amendments, and I place on the record the opposition's appreciation of him making that time available. I have always found that in this particular area—not necessarily under the regime of this minister—people at a high level in the department have made themselves available for briefings, and that is most helpful. When we are dealing with legislation which provides for reform of the structure within the department and within the prisons, particularly in relation to chief executive powers, it is very helpful to us to have someone from the top who can detail how these matters can be operational.

In fact, I asked Mr Severin on this occasion whether there had been any follow up in this legislation from the last tranche of reform under the Correctional Services Act and he indicated that there was nothing to be brought back. It was all in place and it was, from his perspective, operating very well and he had not presented any recommendation for any change to that because it seemed to be effective—and that is good. It is always an indication to us that where there has been reform which has worked and we have the same people in charge, it certainly gives the initial tick that they know what they are doing and can clearly articulate to us if there are any deficiencies.

So the briefing was given and, as the minister has said in his second reading contribution, there are two major areas of reform of the Correctional Services Act through this bill. One is in relation to the prison management and how that is operational in prisons in South Australia, bearing in mind we are talking about the adult prisons here because our juvenile prisons are under the responsibility of the Hon. Jennifer Rankine—more's the pity. However, in any event, our children have separate detention facilities and that is something that I think we should proudly maintain in the sense of ensuring that our children do have a separate judicial system and a separate correctional system to provide for rehabilitation and to isolate them from those adults in our system who have committed serious offences.

As a slight aside, I was disappointed when I recently went to China that I was not provided with access to a children's prison there, but I do not think they were too keen for me to look at even adult prisons.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I wasn't going to be shot. Notwithstanding requests in a number of different cities that I have an opportunity to see the facilities where they did help to 'retrain' (as they described it) their children, I was not given access to any. Nevertheless, on another day I will outline some of the excellent facilities I was able to visit, including a children's welfare agency where adoptions are made and children with disability attend. These are not children who have committed any offence but, tragically, half of them (in a 350-child facility which I attended) were stolen children. These were children who were harvested in the trafficking of children trade which, of course, is still very prolific in the world and, sadly, China is no exception. It is always rather sad to see children in institutional care in a welfare circumstance but sometimes it is their only respite and protection.

In any event, I have digressed and I want to come back to the adult prison system where we have a different set of rules for good reason and where there has been considerable reform proposed in this bill which I will detail shortly. There is also the more controversial aspects of reform in this bill and that is to the parole management and particularly that of the Parole Board and the expansion of powers to other law enforcement agencies that are proposed by the government, some of which we think will be helpful but many of which we do not agree with and we will be presenting amendments which I will outline.

There is no doubt that there has been quite a lot of consultation about a number of these amendments. I have learnt in this place that consultation for the government, for some ministers, is comprehensive and effective, they listen and add reforms and they utilise the consultation process to employ the law in this state. Sadly, there are a number of ministers who do not abide by that. I have noticed some (and I am not going to name them today) who do not consult. They send out a missive or a discussion paper of exactly what they intend to do.

They go through the charade of consultation. They do not take a scrap of notice of anyone who comes up with an idea that is either inconsistent with the government's proposed direction or which they take objection to, and they proceed, of course, to publish what they intend to do, introduce a bill and ram it through the parliamentary process using numbers. There is scant regard for the people it is actually going to affect adversely at the other end.

I think that there has been considerable consultation in this area. It seems as though parties such as the Law Society, the Parole Board, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and the Police Association are all stakeholders in this area and each has different approaches to the consultation that it has participated in, and they have raised some concerns.

I suspect some of those, particularly from the Police Association, have been picked up by the government and they are running with them and that some consultation has taken place with the other relevant parties, including the Parole Board, but I raise concerns that, particularly in the parole management law reform that is incorporated, there seems to have been scant regard for how this is going to be effected and who should protect the public in respect of the difficult management of prisoners post release from a secure facility or prison.

Other relevant parties may have made contributions to the government, including the Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the Bar Association, Victim Support Service and Prison Fellowship. These are all, again, relevant parties, and I would hope that the government, in particular this minister, keeps an active program of opportunity to meet with these parties to ensure that we have their contemporary views on such matters.

What was clear, though, at the time of the announcement by press release on 2 June this year, was that the minister wanted to say to the public that the reforms that he was going to introduce to this parliament, that are now in this bill, were going to have a significant impact on protecting the public against parolees who act in a manner subsequently to cause fear or danger. That in itself is not a problem.

The press release started with 'Greater powers for authorities in parole law shake up.' I suppose some spin doctor has come up with that little title but I think the gist was there. The minister might have come up with it himself; perhaps he should stick to his other job. It opens with:

Every police patrol will have unprecedented power to act as a 'mini parole board' under the biggest shake up of the state's parole laws to be introduced to parliament in 30 nearly years.

I think it should be 'nearly 30 years', but in any event that was the press release. The impression anyone would have in reading that, of course, is that this was going to be a massive reform that was going to arm every little patrol car and every little bobby out there with some sort of power to be able to—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Bobby?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just saying they are all going to be a mini parole board. The only thing missing, really, apart from the 'unprecedented', is the 'world first', 'world's best practice'; we are missing a few of those. You should learn from the Premier about doing press releases, minister, because obviously he would have spread that out a bit; he would have had two sentences for that little announcement. Nevertheless, here is a key to where the deficiency comes in the minister's consultation:

The minister for Correctional Services, Tom Koutsantonis, said the 21 principal amendments to the—

and he refers to the act—

have been finalised after extensive consultation with SAPOL, the Parole Board and interest groups.

When we have come to look at this bill, we have seen that, quite rightly, the chief executive of the correctional services department has had some input, but, clearly, SAPOL has been the overwhelming contributor to the reforms. He goes on to say:

'These are the most significant and comprehensive changes to the State's parole laws since the Act was administered in 1982 and will give authorities greater powers, more information and the ability to act at the first signs of trouble,' he said.

It is impossible to predict if a parolee is going to re-offend and the way the laws are now, it is very hard for authorities to respond straight away to pre-empt a parolee re-offending, these reforms are aimed at fixing that.

Parole is a privilege and not a right, and we are changing the laws to reflect that.

The press release goes on to identify the number of areas of reform. This is pretty strong stuff. This is a major reform. This is going to arm law enforcement authorities, more than just the Parole Board, with the capacity to protect the public against these parolees who do the wrong thing.

One of the most publicised and disturbing cases that was the prelude to this reform was the case of Shane Andrew Robinson, who was a relatively young man who was released from prison in July 2009 on parole. I am sure every member in this house will remember the shocking siege that subsequently took place near Peterborough—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Near Yunta.

Ms CHAPMAN: —near Yunta, where Mr Robinson ultimately killed himself. That is tragic in itself, but, prior to that, he had seriously injured a police officer—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Jeffrey Allen.

Ms CHAPMAN: —Mr Jeffrey Allen, the member for Stuart reminds me—and also a senior lady who was well known to the former member for Stuart and who had lived, I think, in the outback for a long time. Certainly no-one deserves to be assaulted by anybody, but in her senior years she was held and, to my recollection, quite severely injured during the siege.

The whole event culminated in this young man killing himself. Serious questions were asked. Obviously, the media went mad—and quite rightly so—about what had possibly gone wrong to have a situation where a young person is purportedly fit to stand for trial (as his parole order had been issued), yet he had behaved in this way.

At the time members might recall that then attorney-general Atkinson went straight out to make statements about what had gone wrong, very publicly and very forcefully. He left no quarter for those who he considered responsible and, in particular, laid the blame fairly at the foot of Frances Nelson QC, who was then and remains the Chair of the Parole Board in South Australia.

With that accusation of her being responsible, statements were made by the then attorney-general including 'it got so spectacularly wrong with the Yunta siege gunman'. Remember that he was the attorney-general, so he was not directly responsible for the Parole Board, but he was the senior law officer of the government of the state making the allegation. He made these statements, and then the current minister was asked about what had happened. He has responsibility specifically for the Parole Board—it is under his jurisdiction that the appointment is made.

Members might recall that, at the time, although minister Atkinson had come out with all guns blazing against Ms Nelson in holding her responsible, in fact it became known that Mr Tim Bourne, the deputy of the Parole Board (who I think was acting chair at the time) was actually the person who determined the application for release under the parole order.

Notwithstanding that, subsequently Frances Nelson QC said that, whilst she was in England at the time (I think attending to some sick relative, but in any event that was all public at the time), she made it very clear that she, as Chair, took responsibility for the whole of the board, even though Mr Bourne had been identified as the person who made the decision. Quite properly, Ms Nelson said, 'I am not absolving myself of any responsibility here.' I hear that plenty of times in this house, of course, from ministers who just blame some departmental person or whatever as to what has happened with things.

She took it on the chin and said, 'Well I may not have made the decision, but I am responsible for the board, and I will answer on those issues.' I think it is to her credit that, in fact, she was reappointed—I am not sure whether by this minister—as Chair of the Parole Board by this government, and it indicates the high regard in which she is held. Notwithstanding that, I recall Mr Atkinson also alleged a number of other things about Mr Robinson; in particular, that he had a very serious and long criminal record, which was the basis upon which he had been imprisoned, and he identified heinous sexual felonies, etc. The clear motivation was to convey to the public that this was a man who had a shocking criminal history, that he should never have been let out in the first place, and that this was all the Parole Board's fault.

The second thing Mr Atkinson made clear was that, after parole had been granted, Mr Robinson had failed a drug test. Often with prisoners who have a drug addiction, when they are released of course they have to maintain treatment and undergo blood tests to identify that they have stayed clean and not participated in the offending drug, etc. There were also allegations made by the then attorney-general about Mr Robinson's failure to comply and the fact that the Parole Board had done nothing about it.

When Ms Nelson returned from England, she had something to say about this. Whilst taking full responsibility for the decision that was made by her board in the first instance, she made the real situation clear to the public of South Australia. I for one appreciate her doing that. Members should remember that all this explosion from the government—the protests and howls of discontent from the then minister Atkinson—were in the months leading up to the 2010 election. How convenient that there should be this lambasting of the Parole Board from the then attorney-general! Ms Nelson set out a number of aspects. Mr Conlon asked the following question on radio on 14 July 2009:

Oh okay. Well that is what Michael Atkinson has said. He has 80 convictions, including sieges, extreme violence, sexual assault on a pre-teen, dishonesty, weapons and drugs.

Her answer was:

No, he was convicted of under-age sex because he had intercourse with a 15 year old when he was 19.

Now, that is an offence, and it is a serious one, no-one wants to undermine that, but anyone who had listened to Mr Atkinson's tirade about his previous conduct would have a very different impression about what had occurred. She went on to say, in respect to the parole process:

Well, he was sentenced by the court, he completed his non-parole period, and bear in mind it's not up to the Parole Board to decide how long he stays in gaol, that's a matter for the court. When he comes to us, we have to look at the criteria that is set out in the act to see if he satisfies the criteria. He'd done the programs that were available to him in Port Augusta Prison, which at that time were quite limited, but he'd done them satisfactorily, his behaviour in prison was very good and he was interviewed by the board. He certainly presented as someone who had rehabilitated himself to the level where he was considered suitable for parole.

Then there were some questions about liaising with the police about parole. What she says is:

...we don't liaise with the police, but it's always been understood, as far as I'm concerned, that if someone's parole is revoked it is a priority. Certainly, when they come back into prison they're treated as maximum security prisoners, even whilst they're awaiting [for the subsequent] board interview.

She is then asked the question:

Michael Atkinson says that he should never have been let out. Can you comment on that?

She said:

Well, the reality is he was going to get out anyway. He didn't have an indefinite sentence.

Frances Nelson is later asked about statements made by Mr Atkinson on her claim and she said:

I read his comments that he made where he said in a—

and then there is an unclear word—

that he would sack the people responsible for the decision.

As we now know, Mr Bourne was acting chair at the time and he made the decision. Clearly, he was not sacked, in fact he was known to be a personal friend of the attorney. In any event, no-one from our side of the house is suggesting that he had not acted in an entirely proper manner, as the acting chair, in his duties on the Parole Board, and that he had made that decision conscientiously.

The key question is: how does the government tighten up a situation where someone is granted parole, for all the right reasons—and I think one would accept that Ms Nelson has set out, in these circumstances, all the right reasons that he be paroled—and they fail to comply with the conditions of their release, or any term of their parole? How do we make sure that they are quickly brought back into custody and dealt with for any breaches, but also to continue on with their sentence? The assertion was made at the time that the Parole Board, whilst it should not have let him out, had also failed to act when—and I will identify here a statement by the interviewer, who said:

We were told by the Attorney-General, and we've heard just a few moments ago from the correctional services minister, that he repeatedly failed drug tests after he'd been released from prison.

That was the question that was put to Ms Nelson. It was a very pertinent question because it raised this whole aspect of how one quickly remedies a situation if there is a breach. The assertion here is that the Parole Board had in some way failed to act, to do the next step to bring this person back into custody. Ms Nelson said:

I don't think that's right. He certainly returned a positive test to marijuana in May of this year—

remember that we are talking about July at this point—

and he was returned to custody as a result.

So, the alarm about what had happened and the allegations of failure on the part of the Parole Board were, again, completely inaccurate and presented a public perception of incompetence by the Parole Board and by the officers who had conduct of this matter.

The other thing that became patently clear by the end of this very public slanging match between the government and those who were acting at the time—I think the police minister may have come in; I think Mr Michael Wright was the police minister at the time—was that this man had breached his parole and that the Parole Board had acted promptly and caused a warrant to be issued for his arrest. In fact, the warrant sat somewhere in the police department for some weeks and, when the police had to deal with the tragic circumstances up near Yunta, including the assault and wounding of the police officer, weeks had passed and this person had not been brought back into custody.

I am pleased to note that the police have now ensured that when warrants are issued they are acted on and given priority, and there are currently no outstanding warrants for parolees. Notwithstanding the spraying by ministers in the public media, it seems that the Police Commissioner has, at some stage, acted to ensure that these warrants are not left unattended and are promptly dealt with. I am reassured and pleased by that; however, what concerns me greatly is that I have had to find that out—I certainly hope it is accurate—from third-party sources.

Over the last three years, I cannot recall any minister for police—and our current police minister is about to retire—coming into this house to say, 'I want to report to this house that the Police Commissioner has now instituted a new protocol or guideline, or whatever it is called, in the police department to ensure that, when the police get notice of a warrant issued for someone who is in breach of their parole, they act on it immediately.' I am very disappointed about that.

Why would the government or the current Minister for Police or even his predecessors not be proud if that were the case and come in and say, 'Things went wrong in the past, but we have actually conducted the inquiry and found out where the problems are, and I am pleased to report that the people of South Australia can feel safe again. We have identified the problem, we have acted on it, and we give that reassurance.'

However, we have blinding silence from the government because, after all that spraying around and trying to blame Frances Nelson and the Parole Board generally, everyone else was at fault. There were even questions raised about the police at the time, but we had no accountability back here in the parliament as to what actually occurred. We had promises by ministers that they would look into it and make sure the situation was remedied; they were going to change the law. We had all that chest beating.

We have had all those male hormones going ape over the need to do all this sort of thing; but we need some answers back here in the parliament to reassure the people of South Australia that when things have gone wrong, which could be remedied without even changing the law, we should know about it. We are entitled to know about it, and we need to have that reassurance.

I just want to place on the record that, whilst the former attorney-general has form in his explosive and, I think, more colourful than necessary descriptions but sometimes inaccurate public statements in his glory days as the attorney-general of this state—we are used to all of his carry on—it was disappointing to note on this issue at that time that the then minister for correctional services, who now sits before us, waged in on the act.

I hope that, by identifying this, the minister will take stock of this and, firstly, not take the lead from Mr Atkinson again, because he frequently gets things wrong, but, secondly, make sure that on such an important issue the information is right. On 14 July 2009, in answer to a question about the attorney-general's statements, which was: 'Does the buck stop with the Attorney-General, or are you trying to pass the buck?', minister Koutsantonis said:

Oh no, I'm not trying to pass the buck to anyone, look, I will be asking Frances Nelson and the Parole Board some very serious questions when I get a chance to meet them either today or tomorrow, the truth is, somewhere along the line the Parole Board has spectacularly let down the people of South Australia and the evidence of that is a siege at Yunta, this gentleman should not have been let on parole, it's completely obvious to me going through his case notes—

and I interrupt this quote to say that by this stage he had already read the case notes on this man—

that there's no reason he should have been on parole, he failed drug tests five times while on parole, at each and every stage of his parole he's failed a drug test, we notified the Parole Board and they didn't act, the only time they acted was when the police went and visited Mr Robinson's partner, found that he was missing and that he was carrying dangerous weapons...they then acted on advice from police, it seems to me the Parole Board has made a mistake and look it's a tough job being on the Parole Board, they get it right sometimes, they get it wrong sometimes, this is a chance that they got it wrong.

The grammar is not so brilliant, but I do not blame the minister for that; it is probably the recording of it. What is important in here is that he goes on to say:

I agree with everything that the Attorney has said, it might be time to freshen up the Parole Board, that doesn't necessarily mean sacking anyone, it could mean appointing new people...

What is important to note from this is that it seems that at that stage the minister had not yet met with the Chair of the Parole Board or members of the Parole Board but had flagged an indication that he was going to do so. He had read the notes of the file, and he had apparently been briefed from someone about what the police were reported to have done on previous breaches, and still got it wrong in advising the public on this.

There was no coming back into the parliament later to say, 'Well, look, actually we made a mistake on this. We have now investigated and is not actually right.' And he could still stand here and say, 'Well, look, I'm still of the view that even with all the information before them it was not a good decision to let him out—in hindsight.' He could still have had that view if he wanted to, but what he was completely ignoring is what happened then after the warrant was issued and there was non-attendance to the undertaking of that warrant. That is a direct responsibility of the police. That is a matter which I think we should have had reported back to us here.

If I am right in the information that I have received that there has been a change internally in relation to the police ensuring that they act on these warrants, I am thrilled, but I think the government should have the honesty to tell us that is what has been happening. Take credit for it if you want to; tell us if you instructed them to do it but, when you say that you are going look at these things carefully and you are going to look at all of the aspects that need to be fixed up and fix them, do not conveniently leave bits out. That is what I say. We still say that the Minister for Police should come into this house and tell us what happened in his investigation of this matter, or his predecessor if Mr Wright still had the conduct of this investigation at the time. However, as usual, we have bittersweet silence.

I return then to the government's effort to make sure cases like this did not happen again. This was just one of a number of cases at the time and in the lead-up to the election the details were brutally published in the papers and on the airwaves. We can all imagine why they were beaten up in that regard, but I have highlighted this particular case because the brutality was on some of the people of South Australia and indeed a police officer, and it needed to have attention and the public needed to be reassured.

Let us then go to what they came up with. Firstly, I am going to address the aspects of prison management. I do not think that the Shane Robinson case had anything to do with prison management; it is clearly part of the priority of this bill, which relates to the parole reforms. That is evident by the priority that minister Koutsantonis gave to it in his press release. However, I think it is important that we run through them and I will identify where there is some indication for change.

In relation to prison management, my understanding from the briefing was that there had been a number of recommendations from the Australian Crime Commission, which I think was essentially saying—and I am sure the minister will correct me if I am wrong—that there had been a general recommendation that the processes in the prison system needed to be more robust, that other jurisdictions had attended to this and that it seemed as though we were dragging the chain a bit and we needed to remedy that.

I accept that there had been some other inquiries at the time, and my recollection is that one of these legislative reforms came as a result of an ombudsman's inquiry. Members will know that the ombudsman, unfortunately for his office, receives probably the most number of complaints that they have to act on in South Australia from the department of corrections. Prisoners often write to the ombudsman, sometimes with relatively small complaints, such as that they had not been given three vegetables on their lunch plate or something and that they want to complain to the ombudsman that it is in breach of one of the guidelines in the prison rules, or that they had not got their pocket money on time, or something. No doubt it is very important to the prisoner, but they are fairly small matters.

When we get our annual Ombudsman's report, we get a massive number of reports from the Department of Correctional Services which is quite disproportionate to the number of people in South Australia who utilise those services by being a prisoner. I think the second biggest area was health, but they now have their own health complaints commissioner, so they are out of the ombudsman's reports. Not surprisingly, the Department for Families and Communities—particularly from Housing Trust tenants—has one of the largest number of complainants to the ombudsman. Nevertheless, from time to time, there are things serious enough where the ombudsman's office feels that they need to publish a result from an inquiry or an investigation, and some of these reforms, as I understand it, came from them.

Other changes have come about because there has just been some embarrassing incident, I think for the minister particularly. The minister should not feel alone on this because ministers for correctional services over the years have always had a few challenges, I think it is fair to say. I can remember one minister for prisons, as it was then known, in the Tonkin government, created the headline of the day when he made a statement in relation to prisoners breaking out of the then facility at Yatala, which was of great concern to the metropolitan community.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: We will come to riots in a minute. On that occasion, the minister was, I think, so frustrated by the number of people who had escaped that he made the statement, 'Well, it's just like frogs jumping of a log.' Of course, that became the headline of the day as to how the poor minister was trying to manage the issue.

The current minister tells me that no-one has broken out of a prison in his time, and I do not think there have been any riots. I think minister Zollo was in charge at the time of the last major Port Augusta riot. So, it is not an easy job. I want to qualify that by saying that it is not easy. However, you would have to be at least not terribly alert to have a situation where you have not worked out that people in prison frequently have a drug or alcohol addiction and that they will try all sorts of things to get drugs into the prison, and tennis balls have been used for decades. This is not new.

People have played sport—ping-pong, football, you name it—and sporting equipment has gone back and forth over prison walls for as long as I know. It is not going to stop. It is always going to be the case that people who are addicted will make the effort to get access to drugs. Why? Most reasonably, because frequently they do not have access to any program in the prison to help them deal with their addiction, so this is something they will go to all lengths and expense to get access to. I do not doubt that the authorities are trying hard to deal with this matter on a daily basis. The searches, the checks that go on, are all important. However, one of the reforms here today, of the penalty for bringing in illicit drugs that are prohibited in a prison being increased from two to five years' imprisonment, which is more than in other areas, is probably a good thing.

We have a number of drug laws which provide much higher penalties for all sorts of places, including outside of schools and so on—obviously, for good reason. However, taking a controlled substance, drug or any prohibited item into a prison, such as any weapons and so on (there is a whole list of prohibited items), will attract a prison term of five years. I do not doubt, minister, that it is embarrassing when you have to answer to the fact that there has been a breach of security and drugs have got into the prison. Just a little tip: sports equipment, tennis balls included, has been used for decades and you need to keep a close eye on it.

The other aspect I want to refer to relates to the centralisation of responsibility in the chief executive officer. We have looked at that, and we have yet to see some of the changes that will be implemented in the new process. We do not have any objection to it, but we would want to see how that process will work. If transferring this direct responsibility from prison managers across to the CE has the benefit of making for a more efficient process, we would welcome that.

The issue of prison allowances is really a totally political proposal. When looking at the bill, members will know that at present the minister has responsibility for setting and reviewing the rate of prisoner allowances.

I think under minister Matthew, there was a new regime introduced which ensured that the allowances that were paid to prisoners would be the same if they went to school as if they were working at the prison. The philosophy behind that was that, because there is quite a lot of literacy issues in prisons, the importance of giving people training and so on was to be recognised and rewarded. They were never going to get people to go into the school facilities if they were going to get paid more to put furniture together, or whatever the project was that was available to them under the union agreement about the work to be undertaken.

If they were going to get double to do that than if they went to the school in the prison, they would not go to school. I think that was an important initiative, and I certainly hope the government has maintained that because we need to do the best we can in the rehabilitation of prisoners while they are there, and they should be given as much incentive as possible. In any event, the amount overall paid to prisoners in this allowance was a ministerial decision.

We all know that out in the public world, generally, there is little sympathy for prisoners. In academic debates and presentations, the importance of rehabilitation and the recognition of the benefits that need to be looked at as a priority, as distinct from punishment, are all things that the average person in the community either has little interest in or, at least, has little sympathy for if it is seen as generous to prisoners. It does not surprise me that the minister wants to be a hundred miles away from the decision making on prisoner allowances because if he recommended, to himself, that he increased the allowance—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: To the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: —to the Treasurer—and that was accepted, then selling it to the public is not easy. The minister has already had to try to sell flat-screen televisions and all sorts of things for prisoners. Some of us here recognise that some of the services to prisoners are important. The priority on flat screens may be another matter and we do not need to debate that today, but it is important to understand that men, particularly, in our prison system—and it is mostly men—are sometimes confined to their cell for up to 20 hours a day and some activity needs to be undertaken, and that does include some entertainment and access to recreational activity, whether it is a book, DVD or whatever.

I digress a little, but this bill proposes that the chief executive will take over responsibility for prisoner allowances. They have not been increased I think for 20 years or so, according to the work done by the Hon. Stephen Wade in researching this, and we know that there are no votes in it. The public does not give a tink about it and therefore the easy way is to hand it over to the chief executive and he can be the one to go out to the public and say, 'It is reasonable for prisoners, just like everyone else, to have a small increment from time to time in their allowance to ensure that they have some reasonable funds with which to buy their personal effects.' It is a long time since I have been to the prison canteen at Yatala but the member for Hammond has a prison in his electorate.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Two in Stuart.

Ms CHAPMAN: Two in Stuart, yes. Port Augusta and where?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Cadell.

Ms CHAPMAN: Cadell, of course. Yes, I was thinking that was in Schubert. The member for Hammond, of course, has the Mobilong facility which I think was established in the 1980s, if my memory serves me correctly, and that has been an important lower security prison for reform in this state. Of course, his electorate was to get another big, swanky prison a few years ago—

Mr Pederick: In 2006.

Ms CHAPMAN: —in 2006, he tells me—and, of course, that was shelved. I remember that they were going to remove and relocate James Nash House and all sorts of other things. There were some aspects of that redevelopment that were completely unacceptable. To relocate the psychiatric services of James Nash House down to Murray Bridge was totally in error in any judgement of any qualified person who was looking after the health and wellbeing of our prison population who clearly were not fit to plead and who needed to have special services.

I for one was pleased that, when the prison did not go ahead and they ran out of money or something, they were going to abandon that part of it, because the health professionals, the nursing and medical people, were saying, 'There's no way that we can service the clients that we have in the metropolitan area and go back and forth down to the prison service that they want to relocate to Murray Bridge.' In any event, I am sure that the member for Hammond will remind the government that there is still plenty of land down there for a purpose-built facility. If that is going to be a place for the future detention of our medium-level secure prisoners, then I am sure that he will be able to accommodate it; and that, if there is going to be a facility for high-level security prisoners, he will easily bring it in.

In fact, the way that the Zoo is going at the moment they will probably have some space out at Monarto as well. No doubt after the pandas fail to reproduce—in any event, we do not get to keep the panda offspring, do we? They have to go back to China. That was an agistment deal that came from hell, wasn't it? But, anyway, let us assume that, even if Monarto is able to be salvaged in the Zoo's current predicament and it is not available, there is still plenty of other area down there on which that facility can be built.

Anyway, again, I digress. The other aspect that is going to be transferred to the chief executive is the repayment rates that are to be made under the victims of crime levy. Very briefly, members will be aware that, when you are convicted of an offence, there are a number of penalties that can apply, including prison, fines and so on, but there is often a victims of crime levy, which the offender, once convicted, is directed to pay.

If you are not in prison, of course that is something that is done over a period of time directly to the courts authority. If you are a prisoner, this is something that needs to be supervised while you are in prison, and it is proposed that the chief executive is to assume responsibility for setting the repayment rates, that is, whether it is to be $1, $2 a week, or whatever, for that payment.

Another issue relates to payments to prisoners from released prisoners. The situation here is that prisoners who have been released for a period of 12 months after their release cannot pay money into the bank account of a member of the current prison population without permission of the chief executive under a proposal in this bill. What happens is that there is seen to be quite a few deals that are done in prison, and some of them are not very appropriate—some of them are illegal.

In an attempt to crack down on the application of these being undertaken (sometimes they involve blackmail, and the like), if the power is given to the chief executive to stop there being the depositing of any money into an account, then that is something that is a tool that the chief executive says that he needs to have and we will support it.

With respect to the provision of items for personal use or consumption, it is proposed that the chief executive set prices for the sale of personal items for personal use or consumption. As I say, there is a sort of canteen facility. There are only certain things you can buy. You cannot buy a gun, a file, or anything else in prison, but you can buy deodorant, chocolate and cigarettes—not cigarettes any more I do not think—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Still cigarettes? Yes, in an adult prison, but not out at Cavan, I might say, the children's prison. In any event, there is a price setting necessary for that. It is an interesting analogy. I think that we are dealing with APY lands and the cost of all their produce on there. In any event, at present, having set the price, any profit can be placed into the Prisoner Amenity Account, which is ultimately then available for the benefit of all prisoners.

Next we come to visitor identification. Again, this is a mechanism for management of the prisons. It is proposed that visitors who come in to see prisoners must do a number of things: they have to provide evidence of identity; they must not touch a prisoner unless it is part of a program approved by the chief executive; a released prisoner must not visit another prisoner within 12 months of release (for the same reasons that they cannot put money in their ex-cellmate's bank account); and a prisoner who has been convicted of a sexual offence must not be visited by a person under the age of 16 years without approval from the chief executive.

In terms of that last one, the Liberal Party considers that it needs some amendment. We think that, where there has been any evidence of domestic violence, then a victim up to the age of 18 years old should also be protected, for the same reason as in the sexual offence clause. The Parole Board has discussed that with us, and we think it is very important. Members will be aware that there is a Domestic Violence Act, which is an interesting analogy to the bill before us, because that was passed some time ago. Significant amendments were passed some time ago to give the police all sorts of powers under that act, and 2½ or so years later we still do not even have any regulations to complete the application of that act.

I was told, originally, that having progressed that bill through the parliament they needed to train up officers and various things, and one would expect that that would need to be done. However, because we were one of the last states to implement extra provision for protection of domestic abuse victims following the Maurine Pyke inquiry and report, it is disappointing that that has not come into effect.

So, whilst we put a number of amendments to that act which were not accepted by the government, in short there was a very substantial increase in the definition of 'domestic violence'. Significantly, there were a number of personnel, including police officers, who were given what we would describe as quasi-judicial power to issue domestic violence orders and to use the injunction power to protect victims.

The other aspect that has been raised with us, by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, is whether this would adversely affect Aboriginal people who often do not carry the usual identification documents with them. If you were the person organised to visit the party in question—the wife or sister or whoever—you would probably think to take your documentation with you. However, as the minister may appreciate, there is a very significant profile of Aboriginal people in the prison population, as a percentage. Not surprisingly, therefore, the visiting population can also often be Aboriginal.

If a spouse travels to visit somebody, they may travel with other family members who do not intend to go and visit the prisoner but were to be the driver, for example. Subsequently, they might want to see the prisoner and do not have the requisite documents, etc. That is one situation where we would ask that some discretion be given to the chief executive in imposing this new level of restrictions. So, some flexibility is needed there.

As to letters sent by prisoners, members would be aware (probably because they get letters from prisoners themselves) that correspondence between prisoners and members of parliament is one example of a number of specific parties who are protected against the authorities reading such correspondence. Members of parliament, a visiting tribunal, the Ombudsman, inspectors—any correspondence between such parties, including legal practitioners of the prisoner, are exempt.

So, your mail cannot be read, interfered with and opened by correctional staff. Again, there can be some exceptions to that if they think there is a bomb in it or illicit drugs, and various things, but, in any event, the proposal here is that we add to that the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. I briefly mentioned that new role that has recently been added; it carries out functions similar to the Ombudsman so, of course, it should be included.

The other aspect, though, of the communications by prisoners is to provide in this bill for the chief executive to monitor the communications of prisoners except where it is between the prisoner and the parties that I have referred to and that the chief executive must authorise any monitoring in advance. Any information that is intercepted that reveals information about an offence must be referred to the police commissioner, and in this instance the bill defines the communication as speech, music or other sounds, data, text, visual images, signals, or any combination of the above.

Of course, the minister says that significant monitoring already takes place under the general practice within the prison and that this is really to ensure that there is no abuse of this or challenge that it needs to be in the legislation. It always worries me when I hear that we need something in legislation and then we find out that, actually, it is already happening anyway and sometimes it has been happening for years.

Sometimes that can happen because everyone assumes that it is going to be okay and that it is within the normal operations, in this instance of the powers of the chief executive of a prison. Then someone does challenge it and then we need to fix it up but, in this instance, there has not been any challenge, to the best of my knowledge. They have just thought, 'Well, this is something that we need to follow up,' and yet we did not even know that it was going on. In any event, that is what the minister claims.

There has been the Law Society recommendation for an amendment that essentially would mean that prisoners would have to be notified in advance if their communications were going to be monitored—which is consistent with what the minister suggests in his contribution to the second reading—but that should be explicit, and the bill should also be amended to include a person 'acting in the capacity of a legal representative' to include lawyers who have not yet been engaged by the prisoner as their representative but who are considering whether they take the prisoner's case.

Again, if we are going to formalise all this, we have to do it properly, so the legal practitioner of the prisoner may not actually be the legal practitioner at the time of that first interview or those first communications and therefore technically could be avoided by the chief executive in being able to monitor that correspondence. I do not think that was even the minister's intention. We want this sorted out so that there are the same exemption entities that are under section 33(7).

The prison penalty for drugs that are taken into prisons is to be increased; I think I have adequately referred to this issue in opening remarks. The supply of prisoner health information between departments is one of those things that sounds quite good at first blush, but I think that the drafting here is inadequate to provide the necessary protections. Essentially the bill will compel the chief executive who is responsible for the administration of the Health Care Act and the Mental Health Act to disclose personal information about a prisoner as is reasonably required for the treatment, care or rehabilitation of the prisoner.

The definition of personal information is 'information or opinion, whether true or not'. We think that is sloppy and we think that it could introduce a situation where that could be abused. Our recommendation in the amendment will be to add a requirement to tighten this up so that the chief executive officer must have formed the belief, on the balance of probabilities, that the information provided is true. It just adds a threshold, which we think is necessary. There may be other aspects which, when the minister turns his mind to this, could add to the tightening of that. We are happy to look at it, but it needs to be done.

Then there is the extension of the search powers to all institutional land, and the defining of the area of a correctional institution is proposed to be 'all of the land identified in a proclamation under section 18(1) related to the institution'. That means essentially that the search powers of the relevant officers can be extended to the car park. Sometimes there are gardens and other things outside correctional facilities. I am trying to think what would still be operational at Yatala outside the main walls—probably not very much because I think they have sold off most of the land out there.

The women's prison expanded to take in the old debtors' prisons, so they probably have access to more land. I think some of the life-imprisoned women there—usually for killing their husband, or a child, sadly—are in the debtors' cottages at the back, which used to be available for people who refused to pay their fines and were imprisoned under the old 10-day orders. Many of those have been converted into units for the life-imprisoned women. Essentially this will, by prescription, identify areas that are broader and would enable the searches to take place, which seems to be a sensible amendment. We would be relying on the minister at least to be sensible, and I think in this instance he could do little damage.

We then have the release of a prisoner to police for questioning. This starts to raise a few aspects which are concerning and which stakeholders such as the Law Society and the ALRM strongly oppose. In essence at present, if a prisoner is suspected of having committed an offence or been charged with an offence, the manager of the correctional institution must, at the request of the police, release the prisoner into the custody of that member of the police force for the purpose of investigation, obtaining evidence or identifying the prisoner as the person who committed the offence. That is the current law. The bill, however, proposes to add an additional category of prisoner 'having knowledge or information that might assist in the prevention or investigation of an offence'.

I am sure other members would be alert to the expansion of this as presenting a threshold that would be far too low for the protection of prisoners. It separates off, so instead of the prisoner being someone who is suspected of committing an offence or being party to that, we are really talking about any other intelligence about other offences. This would simply allow the police to request custody of a prisoner for the purpose of an informant, a witness or a whistleblower, and we say that one way of managing this, to take into account the intent of this reform, is to have a threshold which could have added—and our amendment will reflect this—'suspicion on reasonable grounds'. We think that would help in that area.

I now come to parole management, because this really is the thrust of the government's energy in making its announcements about the reform in this legislation. We do not make a criticism of the government or the minister attempting to review or tighten up any agency under its jurisdiction from time to time; that is important. How the Parole Board operates, how its appointments are made and what powers it has, what they are paid, all those things in respect of any agency that is carrying out what is, in this case, a difficult task, needs to be reviewed, and we accept that.

However, what is concerning is that these reviews have, seemingly, only come in the life of this government when there has been some problem, rather than there being some regular review. Certainly, in the last nine years I have received a number of requests by the Parole Board—in particular, the chief executive of the Parole Board, but they report to this parliament each year as well—regarding recommendations they have made about initiatives the government should consider.

Whilst I entirely accept that the government, the executive, can make decisions about whether it brings in legislation to reform these things, when they are put up by boards such as the Parole Board, it is disappointing to note that there have been a lot of them over the years which have, I think, been ignored and not picked up. Yet when there is a disaster out in the community, the government comes back in with a proposal that is supposed to look tough, that will be protective, and all that. In fact, we would say it has probably gone too far; certainly, it has introduced a bill with aspects that will cause more trouble than the ill it is trying to remedy.

I start with the parole reports through the chief executive. One of the important things the Parole Board looks at when it reviews a prisoner is how the prisoner has behaved in prison, what they have done and what they have failed to do, whether they have completed tasks, or have been of good behaviour or have caused any friction or had disputes with other prisoners; all that type of information is very important. Members may be aware that at present, in essence, the community corrections officers provide this information to the Parole Board. The government's proposed amendment is that the chief executive would provide these reports.

My understanding of the rationale for this is that prisoners are frequently in more than one institution, and if they have been in multiple institutions during the period of their confinement it would be more practicable for the chief executive to do it. Of course, he or she would have to collate all this from the people on the ground, and perhaps provide some summary. There is some prisoner movement—sometimes it is necessary because they are going to a lower area of security or because not all institutions provide services or programs for rehabilitation.

If someone were at Port Augusta prison, for instance, and needed to have access to a domestic violence program that is not provided there but is provided at the Port Lincoln facility, or at the Cadell facility, and the level of security were still adequate, then they could be transferred. I think they can still sometimes be transferred because of compassionate grounds—at least I hope they still can be—when other family members or dependents move, and there is an important aspect of rehabilitation in having family close by so that they can assist in pre-release programs, etc. So there are lots of good reasons why prisoners are moved around.

The opposition takes the view that we should continue with the current system because the community corrections officers are the people on the ground, the ones making the assessments, recording the information and providing it directly to the Parole Board. We see that as important. That is direct information from them, and is far more helpful than some condensed or summarised position from the chief executive, who may not have had any personal connection with the prisoner other than to note that they exist in the system. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]