STATUTES AMENDMENT (ELECTRONIC MONITORING) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2013.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:02): I advise the house that I will be the opposition's lead speaker on this piece of legislation—the Statutes Amendment (Electronic Monitoring) Bill 2013. I will be fairly brief, I will not need to avail the house of my unlimited time, and I happily advise that the opposition fully supports this bill from the government. It is a very straightforward approach, and we are in favour of what the government has proposed.

It is also fair to give credit to the Hon. Ms Ann Bressington from the other place, who put forward her bill—the Correctional Services (GPS Tracking for Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012—in the middle of last year, because that really was the precursor to this. At the time, the government said that it would take notice of the work and the proposal from the Hon. Ms Bressington and expand on it, and that is exactly what they have done.

So, credit to her for getting the ball rolling and credit to the government for coming back, as they said they would, but let me say very clearly that it is a bit of a shame that the government has waited so long on this. There was a recommendation 17, back in 2005, from the Select Committee on the Youth Justice System, which was:

That the Home Detention Programme be immediately expanded to meet the identified needs of the Youth Court.

That Home Detention and other Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes be offered in South Australia, including Regional Centres and Remote Communities.

Now, that is largely what the government has come back with, eight years later, so there has certainly been some slow progress; nonetheless, we do support what we have ended up with here. Just for the benefit of members, the use of electronic monitoring devices by authorities is currently limited to: first, offenders serving the last part of their prison sentence on home detention; secondly, court-ordered intensive bail supervision; and, thirdly, a condition of release imposed by the Parole Board. What this bill seeks to do is not only expand the number of people who could be covered by this legislation but also expand the way in which they could be monitored, and I think that is very sensible.

This bill essentially proposes authorities use electronic monitoring devices in the following three circumstances: first, a prisoner participating in approved activities outside of prison; secondly, a defendant released to the community on a supervision order by the courts; and, thirdly, a person released on licence by the courts. The bill also proposes that if the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment for child sex offences, on release the Parole Board must consider the use of electronic monitoring—must consider the use. I suspect that the Parole Board would have done that anyway, but nonetheless, this makes it very clear that that is what they are actually meant to do.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we all would have received concerns from people who take it upon themselves to advocate on behalf of the public's civil liberties, and all of us here would take the public's civil liberties very seriously; there would not be one person here who would not do so. Let me suggest that on the Liberal opposition side of the house, we take that perhaps even more seriously; we believe in rights and we believe in opportunities for people.

Using the removal of civil liberties as an argument against this bill I think is a big mistake; I do not accept that. I think people who commit serious crimes, even after they have been released from prison, do have to face the fact that some of the liberties that somebody who had never been an offender and who had never been to prison benefits from may not actually still be theirs.

That is not just because the government, or the Parole Board, or any other organisation might want to impose extra restrictions; it might actually be a way of providing additional liberty. It might actually be that under this proposed legislation, an offender, for all the right reasons, may be allowed to leave prison early so long as they participate in some sort of an electronic monitoring program.

For people to say that it is a reduction or removal of civil liberties to have to go through this I think is a great mistake, because, on the one hand, maybe that is quite appropriate, and on the other hand, it is quite possible that the liberty that they would enjoy under an electronic monitoring program would be far greater than the liberty that they would enjoy if they were still in prison. I think that is a very important issue to consider.

The Hon. Ms Bressington moved her legislation around a year ago, very much with child sex offenders in mind. She really was focused on child sex offenders, and we would all understand why. We would all find anybody who commits any child sex offence to be an absolutely disgraceful person—'in need of extraordinary help' is probably the kindest way I could think to put it. It is important to say that those people have not been excluded.

The broadening of this legislation by the government does not exclude the intent of the Hon. Ms Bressington at the time; in fact, let us hope that, if this legislation is passed, the ability to electronically monitor child sex offenders after release from prison (if that is what is deemed appropriate at the time) may well be an extra deterrent. Some people have been telling me lately that it is a growing trend for prisoners to not ask for parole, and this is typically the case with regard to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

I am not saying that every one of those people are doing it, but it is, I am told, a growing trend for people to not ask for parole, to serve their full sentence and then to be released from prison essentially with no conditions whatsoever because the theory is they have paid their debt to society. I am told that, as well as bikie gang members, convicted sex offenders are doing exactly that, too, so that their movements are not nearly as prone to monitoring as they would have been if they went out on parole. So, this does give some additional power to monitor those people.

Let's hope that that additional power puts some of them off. I just cannot possibly imagine what would make a person want to participate in that sort of activity to begin with, but let's hope that those people are actually deterred by this extra monitoring that could be done of them. Let's hope that some of the people who have committed child sex offences in our public schools over the last few years might have thought twice if they knew they could be the subject of electronic monitoring. That has been a really devastating area of concern for the South Australian public.

Any crime against a child is heinous, but any child sex offence is particularly inexcusable and any child sex offence committed while that child is in the care of the government in a public school raises a whole range of other questions, so let's hope that this proposed legislation, if successful, goes along way towards putting people off.

Let me also just say thank you very much to the minister and his staff and also the Department for Correctional Services for the briefing that they gave me and my staff member on this. They were, as always, very open and very frank, and I am very grateful for the really open, genuine information I receive whenever I have a briefing from the Department for Correctional Services. We do not always necessarily agree on every subject, but they never shy away from sharing information with me as openly as they possibly can, so I appreciate that. I also appreciate the work that my staff member Mr Kris Hanna does to continually support me in my shadow roles. I say again that the opposition supports this bill.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:13): I certainly support this bill and I think it goes a long way in the aspect that it also addresses what can happen with future technologies. We presently can tell where people are through GPS technology, but no doubt one day we will also be able to tell whether they are taking drugs or are drinking alcohol when they should not be, and if that is a part of their bail conditions, with future technology, there is no doubt that we will be able to tell when those offenders are doing the wrong thing.

Particularly with sex offenders, I believe that their civil liberties have gone out the door for the crimes they have committed, and we should always know exactly where those people are so that they cannot reoffend. Through this bill getting through the parliament, I am sure it will be better for particularly our young people in the aspect that those previous offenders will have these limitations on them so that we can tell where they are at all times. I certainly commend the bill.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (12:15): To give some background on the way that this particular piece of legislation was worked up—and not to take too much away from the Hon. Ann Bressington—we had an approach from the Northern Territory, and I know the deputy leader is very keen to see the state of South Australia further develop its ties with the Northern Territory given the fact that the Northern Territory was actually the northern territory of South Australia at one time. I had an approach I believe—and I was just trying to check it out—from the then Northern Territory attorney-general (who was also the Minister for Correctional Services) and Ken Middlebrook, the CE Corrections, Northern Territory.

They were visiting Adelaide to see whether they could team with us in co-joining with our existing contract for electronic devices to monitor the movement of prisoners. We organised a briefing for them in the corrections office in King William Street and showed them the existing technology which is the ankle bracelet which basically operates on a radio wave connected to a landline. On my understanding, the way that it operates is that monitors are set up on the perimeter of the house—the yard. If somebody wearing the bracelet attempts to move beyond the boundaries of the yard, they trigger an alert. Effectively, the current technology confines an individual to their residence, or a residence.

In the course of discussing the existing technology with the team from the Northern Territory, I was made aware of the fact that our current suppliers had indicated to us that there was a new wave of technology that they were now providing to Victoria. They wanted to discuss with us whether we would want to take on this particular technology, and that is in large part the technology that we are talking about today—the GPS technology.

The attraction with the GPS technology is that it allows the continual monitoring of an individual beyond the boundaries of the home so that if, for argument's sake, somebody was confined to their home and decided that they wanted to break loose, we would be able to notify SAPOL, or corrections would be able to locate the movements of the individual. That is currently not able to be done with the existing technology. Once they are beyond the electronic fence, we don't know where they have gone.

So the Northern Territory were down and we were having the current technology explained to both myself and the Northern Territory team. We were made aware of the new technology that this company was supplying to Victoria and the advice that I received several days later was that the Victorian government was extremely happy with it. I also asked at that meeting if we would determine from the supplier whether we would be at a cost disadvantage—whether it would be more expensive to avail ourselves of this new GPS technology—and I was advised no, it would be cost neutral. So it was on that basis that this bill has been worked up, and it has really nothing to do with Ann Bressington.

The bill is sufficiently wide to allow us to use the next wave of technology which will be the remote sensing of whether alcohol or drugs have been consumed. Apparently, ankle bracelets are being developed or have been developed that not only have the GPS facility but also can monitor whether alcohol has been consumed or drugs have been imbibed. So, in framing the bill, we have kept it very wide because it may well be that in the not so distant future Corrections will have the ability to ensure that individuals are drug free.

I think the deputy leader would be aware that one of the most common issues with people on parole is the taking of drugs. We find that if they break their bail condition and consume drugs, there is a propensity to commit violent acts in the domestic setting because they lose self-control, or to commit acts of robbery to secure the financial wherewithal to fund their drug habit. That is one of the reasons why when people are on parole we regularly monitor through Corrections, whether they are drug free. That technology would be allowed under the legislation before the house.

The other thing that the GPS technology does is allow people the opportunity to go about their day-to-day life—go to the shops, the theatre and all the rest of it. But if they are sexual offenders (and I am thinking of paedophiles here), we can actually block out areas of the city or the state, around things like playgrounds or schools, that become no-go zones. So, if a paedophile fitted with one of these devices attempted to approach a primary school in the area, for argument's sake, then an alert would be triggered.

I think this technology is going to provide a far higher degree of security for the community, and it is going to make the duties of both Corrections and SAPOL a little more precise, scientific and less onerous, so I am very pleased that we have the support of the opposition. It is a good piece of legislation and it is an excellent piece of technology.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (12:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.