Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2017.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (21:51): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in relation to the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and, to remove the suspense, say from the outset that we will be allowing passage, such that we can, through this house. We have opposition to one clause at this stage but, given the large volume of correspondence that has come in only in the last couple of days in relation to the potential effects of this bill, we will be teasing out quite a number of issues in committee to determine whether or not amendments need to be put in the other place.

I think that what the government has tried to do with this bill is largely sensible and will have a positive effect on the ability for our prisons to work and for some positive steps to be taken in relation to drug use, positive steps in relation to the use of body-worn cameras and positive steps in relation to official visitors. I think that this bill has much that is good about it, but it seems that there are a number of things, as is often the way with legislation, that have not been considered and a number of issues that we need to tease out to be able to turn this bill from what it is—a good bill—into a great bill. It does a whole series of eclectic things, all of which come under the purview of the Correctional Services Act.

The bill seeks to make the following changes, and I propose from the outset to go through some of those major changes and then to discuss in detail a number of them. I would also like to put on record a number of submissions that have been put to me, especially in relation to some clauses that we potentially need to tease out, and talk about some other approaches that this bill could have otherwise taken.

First and foremost, the bill sets out a number of objects that will, for the first time, provide some guiding principles as to how the Correctional Services department is to go about its business. It puts in place as the primary object the promotion of community safety. 'Community safety' is a term that is used in this place and also in the public sphere and in the media sphere quite often. The government and the opposition, on many, many occasions, claim to be acting for the benefit of community safety when we talk about issues at hand.

There is another bill which I will not refer to, but essentially we are having a discussion in the public sphere at the moment about the role of rehabilitation in relation to how we can stem drug use. I think both sides of the argument are trying to claim that community safety is the paramount concern and that community safety is indeed on their side. We have talked about it in relation to drugs. We have talked about it in relation to driving. We have talked about it in relation to sentencing. We have talked about it in relation to the conduct of the courts. We have talked about it in relation to the conduct of the police in doing their job.

The difficulty is that this is quite a vague notion. What is community safety? Is community safety best served by looking at greater prevention measures? Is community safety best served by never letting another prisoner out of gaol again? Is community best served by effective transition and rehabilitation back into the community?

The government currently provides a vision using 10 by 20, a report that lays out a number of measures that the government says will help to improve community safety. Interestingly, before the lightbulb moment and the illumination of then minister for correctional services, minister Malinauskas, the government would have said that rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em was the primary way that we were going to ensure community safety, and herein lies the problem with this primary object: nobody knows what community safety means.

We know what the outcome should be. We know that we want it to mean less crime. We want it to mean fewer victims in our community. We want it to mean lower rates of reoffending by people who get out of prison. We want it to mean people doing themselves less self-harm, but how do we get there?

Interestingly, it says the 'promotion of community safety'. Does that mean, for instance, that DCS is going to turn into an advocacy department that runs ads in the public sphere around community safety? The difficulty is that these objects can seem to be benign. They can seem to be in there. There is no legislative effect. There is no penalty, for instance, for the Department for Correctional Services not making community safety its primary concern, but those objects are in there and those objects will inform judicial rulings in this area. It should also inform the way that DCS does its job.

If the parliament is going to go to the trouble of putting in this object as the primary object within this bill and, hopefully, this act, then it would be pretty good if DCS knew what it meant. That is something that definitely needs to be fleshed out as we go on so that we can actually get a genuine understanding of what it is we are attempting to achieve, or at least some guidance about how it is we are going to attempt to achieve what it is that we want to achieve.

The bill then goes on to talk about a whole series of objects, which I will not repeat for the benefit of the house, which essentially talk quite a lot about how DCS is to go about their work. It talks about rehabilitation and ensuring that prisoners are kept safe and that essentially DCS should be doing their job properly to keep prisoners in prison and keep everybody else out of them. It provides some guiding principles essentially around the conduct of DCS.

The bill goes on to provide a whole series of investigative powers to the chief executive. I asked in the briefing why it is that this clause needed to be put in the bill. It seems quite odd. It seems something that would otherwise normally appear in standard operating procedure or standard industrial relations procedure, but for some reason the government has decided to put this clause into the bill and provide greater powers to the chief executive.

Interestingly, when asked in the briefing why, the answer was, 'Nothing specific. We just thought it would be good to be in there. Some other people have this, so we should have this power.' I do not necessarily accept that argument. To say that there is no reason for this legislative change I think suggests that maybe we are a little bit naïve. I definitely do not think that we are.

Again, that is an area that we will be looking at. Whilst we would want the chief executive to undertake his work in a timely fashion and for him to have the compliance of his department, we also want to get to the bottom of what powers the chief executive feels he currently lacks, which the bill seeks to remedy. Essentially, these are quite coercive powers where:

1. The CE may, for the purpose of review or investigation of any matter relevant to the CE's powers, functions, duties or responsibilities…

(i) require an officer employed at the Department to appear at a specific time and place; or

(ii) require an officer or employee of the Department to produce a specified document…and

(b) require an officer or employee of the Department to answer truthfully questions put by the CE that are relevant to the subject matter of the review or investigation.

And this is the bit where it gets slightly coercive:

2. An officer or employee of the Department who fails to comply with a requirement under this section or hinders the exercise of powers under this section is guilty of misconduct for the purposes of the Public Sector Act 2009 and any other Act.

We know that there is a breakdown in the relationship between the minister and his senior executives within the department and with rank and file officers. The fact that, from May 2016 to May 2017, the PSA and DCS appeared in front of the Industrial Relations Tribunal no fewer than 15 times says that there is a breakdown in the relationship. The fact that a union and its senior management need to go to the Industrial Relations Tribunal for every little matter that seems to go wrong suggests that there is no trust between the rank and file prison officers and senior management, that there is no trust between the Public Service Association and DCS and essentially that the umpire is used in a whole range of circumstances, and these are not just individual matters; these are broad-based concerns.

I know of a number of those concerns in relation to the Mobilong Prison: the introduction of the structured day and also the fact that, as I understand it, DCS was asked to provide some physical upgrades in relation to a canopy and also in relation to the opening and closing of gates to cut off certain areas from other areas. Essentially, undertakings were given and not followed through on. I know of a number of other issues that different prisons have brought, via the PSA, to the Industrial Relations Tribunal. That suggest to me that it might be a cost-effective measure to just reserve a court over there at the Riverside building and rename it according to this long-running dispute.

It seems to me that, potentially, that is where this amendment comes from. Potentially, the chief executive feels that he is not getting the truthful and correct information from members of his department. Certainly, that is something we need greater detail on because these are quite serious powers. It basically gives the CE the opportunity to require any employee to produce a specific document and, if they fail to comply, find them guilty of misconduct, which one would presume would lead to sacking. The government needs to come clean about why this is in there, otherwise we may need to look at amending this so that it is in line with normal industrial relations procedure and this is not just a get out of jail free card where the CE can turf anybody if he feels that they are not doing what he would like them to do.

A provision that we certainly support in this bill is the drug testing of DCS employees. It is an amendment that we are going to ask a number of questions on in relation to the implementation of this to make sure that it is done in the correct way. The reason we are extremely supportive of this is because this is our policy. It was something that we announced back in August and we are glad that the government is playing catch up on this, and we are glad that they have finally come to their senses and that this is going to come to fruition.

From what I understand from the briefing, we will be looking at only three drugs, they being the same drugs that we use to test on the roadside, being MDMA, cannabis and meth. At this stage it is only envisaged that we will be using these testing measures in relation to post-serious incident or where senior staff or authorised officers believe that there is reasonable cause to suggest that somebody might be under the influence of drugs and therefore ship them off for a test.

We also believe that it should be extended to random drug testing. I understand, and I am going to check through the committee stage, that that is the case, that this does allow for random testing of prisoner officers. But, as I understand it, that is not something that initially the government is going to look at. This is the debate that has been had in SAPOL for a long time, that is, essentially extending the regime that has just been put in place for SAPOL to be extended across to prison officers.

There needs to be a discussion; we have just, through this chamber, allowed SAPOL to test for heroin and cocaine in addition to the three drugs that are normally tested for in roadside testing and whether or not that is going to come into force here. There is also a question mark around whether or not steroids are something that we should be testing for. That is a concern that has been raised by the Public Service Association. It makes sense to me that they are worried about the side-effects of steroids and their ability to incite aggressive behaviour amongst security officers, especially when you are putting prison officers in some pretty difficult situations in which we would like them to have a level head to make calm and considered judgements.

If they are taking drugs that are going to significantly affect or have a detrimental effect on their being able to undertake their duties, then that is something that we definitely need to look at, whether or not that is something that can be done within the existing framework. I did receive at 9.04pm a letter from the minister in relation to this. I think the minister's office, like we all were, was gearing up for a debate tomorrow, but I do appreciate they have tried to get us some information tonight.

In relation to drug testing of prison officers, one of the questions we have asked is: who currently conducts the drug and alcohol testing of prisoners? It has been said that authorised officers collect the samples which are sent through to SA Pathology for testing, and we will try to tease out what that means, and whether or not that that is going to be the same regime now for testing of prison officers.

The bill also introduces protections for the use of biometric data. When somebody goes into prison—and I have done this a couple of times—you have to present your retinas for inspection. That is valuable—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you take them out or you just stand there with them in?

Mr KNOLL: You stand there with them in, but it depends whether it works or not. You have to get it at just the right angle. It is important that the use of that biometric data is limited. Essentially, there is an offence that has been created for the disclosure of biometric data that incurs a maximum penalty of $10,000 or two years imprisonment. That is quite a serious penalty, but it is quite a serious offence.

If I look at a lot of things that we have been dealing with in this place, we have been looking at biometric data collection, whether it be drug and alcohol testing, whether it be police being able to fingerprint scan or do a whole range of things. In this age of technology, where so much more of our private life becomes public and so much of our personal information or personal DNA becomes public, it is important that our legislation keeps up with that, and so those measures are certainly very much welcomed.

Another positive step is that this bill allows for the use of body-worn cameras in prisons. That is something that we have been pushing for with South Australia Police for a long time. It is good to see that that has been moved over here. I note that SAPOL's rollout of their 1,000 body-worn cameras is moving along quite slowly. I know that there are only about 30 or 40 cameras, as I understand it, in circulation at the moment and that the rollout of these things is quite slow. Certainly, in working out how these things are used in relation to when SAPOL officers need to go to the toilet or need to do something of a more personal nature, we need to make sure we get the implementation of these things right.

Again through the briefing, though, it was pointed out that, whilst this bill will give the government the ability to allow body-worn cameras in prisons, this is something that the government is not looking to roll out currently. It is something into the future. We were told that DCS are currently looking at a trial with emergency support officers. I hope I have that name right, but essentially this is the group of officers I imagine would exist in high-security facilities who would be on stand-by to deal with escalating violent situations within our prisons.

I had cause to visit Silverwater gaol in New South Wales, which is their remand centre. It is also their holding facility to transfer prisoners from other parts of the corrections system into Sydney and then elsewhere. Having gone into one of the main high-security areas, I saw their emergency support officers contain a situation. We got there at the back end of that. It is quite a difficult situation, because they are quite often dealing with people under the influence of drugs who have just come into the prison system and are detoxing, and as such are feeling the poor after-effects of illicit drug use.

As with all the arguments for the use of body-worn cameras by police regarding the gathering of evidence, hopefully it incites better behaviour by both officers and prisoners, and all those positive effects of body-worn cameras will come to play in the corrections system. As I understand it—and again, this is only from the briefing—it was suggested that prison officers currently use handheld cameras to take evidence in certain instances. I think that would be pretty difficult, but if that is something they can actually do, then all power to them. I am sure that trying to conduct your duties in a high-risk situation whilst also holding a camera in one hand would make life pretty difficult.

The bill also creates a new system for the inspection of prisons. When I was first given the honour of being the shadow minister for correctional services, I read the Correctional Services Act. As I will get to a bit later, that led to a few problems for the government, because it seems that, whilst I had read it, the senior executives within DCS had not. It was quite difficult to get to the bottom of the current regime for inspectors visiting prisons. It took me a few months, but I managed to get the name of the current inspector, Mr James Hugo.

There are a few sections within the act that allow for visitors to come into prisons, but it was quite vague, and it seems that the government is looking to bolster that part of the act. The current volunteer system involves a coordinator (currently Mr James Hugo) and a team of around 20 volunteer inspectors. Mr Hugo is paid a small stipend to cover his travel and other costs, but essentially that is more about cost recovery than actually paying him for his time.

Currently, prisoners can request access to an inspector through prison staff, and that is a well-worn process that has been in place for a long time. Inspectors then have access to all areas of the prison and any prisoners or staff. Something which I think is quite smart—and it is something that we would expect and hope to continue—is that when an inspector goes into a prison they will always visit every prisoner who is being kept separate from other prisoners. We can take that to mean, more generally, those who are in solitary confinement.

Currently, there is communication between inspectors and the general manager of the prison. Essentially, the visiting inspector will have a chat to any prisoners who have made a complaint, and chat to any staff member they feel is relevant, and then chat with the general manager. I think that is an informal system to provide another communication link between prisoners and senior management, which is important, especially within prison.

Something I have been thinking about since this bill came out is that I know that I as a shadow minister, along with the previous shadow ministers and I am sure the minister as well, all receive letters from prisoners relating to a whole series of matters. I have received letters in relation to very specific conduct and in relation more generally to the provision of education programs, into a whole manner of things. I received a long, long letter—about 12 pages—and I did take the time to read it. I should have perhaps read the last page first and maybe I would not have spent my time looking at it so closely.

It was from a prisoner in Yatala who said he was having difficulty in undertaking the cleaning tasks that the corrections staff were asking of him, that essentially he had really bad knees and was not able to get on the floor to scrub. He was complaining that prison staff were saying to him, 'Well, mate, you need to find a way to get this done because this is part of your job.' Essentially, he had to find a way by scrubbing whilst sitting on the toilet, which was quite an interesting thing to read. He goes through a whole list. It goes through some of his personal history, which I will not repeat at all, except to say that, when I got to the end of the letter it was signed off 'John Bunting'. I am sure that is a name that all of us would be familiar with, and certainly any potential sympathy that may have been engendered by that long letter evaporated at that point.

There are times when we as shadow ministers try to investigate some of the claims that we think are serious, and the difficulty for us even is that there is no independent way of being able to verify this because these people are in custody and are in a very confined environment. It would be very difficult to ascertain the reality of those situations.

So a visiting inspector regime or official inspector regime is extremely important, because if you are stuck in a gaol cell and something is genuinely going wrong, not to have access to anybody to be able to talk to about it would be extremely difficult and frustrating and may lead to a whole series of adverse behaviours. A strong inspection system for prisons will help to create calm, especially if they are bolstered in the way that it seems the act wants to bolster them, and potentially could lead to less violence within our prisons.

If prisoners feel that there is due process, if they feel that they have procedural fairness, that they have been heard and that genuine complaints are being dealt with, that can have a positive effect. I have received a number of letters that I did not think had a genuine basis for claim, but I suppose when you are sitting in prison and you do not have much to do all day except pen handwritten letters, I am sure that creates the time and ability for prisoners to do that.

This new system is much more prescriptive, at least in the act, but it involves having at least one Aboriginal, one woman and one legal practitioner appointed as an inspector to each prison. I want to ask whether or not we need necessarily to have one woman inspector for all male prisons and what is the rationale behind that. Certainly, having legal practitioners and Aboriginal inspectors is extremely important because we have such a high rate—22 per cent, I think—of Aboriginal incarceration, and anything we can do to help break that cultural divide between the Australian rule of law inherited from our UK forebears and the different cultural practices and traditional practices of Aboriginal people is important. Potentially, there may be some issues with female inspectors if that is misused in any way. I am keen to tease that out and see what is the rationale there.

The system also involves setting three-year terms for the appointment of inspectors, sets out terms for the removal of inspectors and triggers for a vacancy, defines the independence of inspectors from the minister and the chief executive, although, interestingly, I note around that that even though there is independence and that independence is put into the bill, there is still the ability for the chief executive, especially when we are talking about appointing people on three-year terms, to exert a level of influence over the inspectors.

Whilst it does say here that neither the minister nor the CE can control how an official inspector is to exercise the inspectors' statutory functions and powers, or give any direction with respect to the content of any report prepared by an official inspector, there is no penalty for breaking that clause. I am not suggesting at this point that we should but, having said that, we also need to make sure that these inspectors are real.

As I understand, the volunteer system as it currently stands is something that needs to be improved. I think that the next part of the bill, the inspectors' regime that seeks to change that, may help to professionalise it. I am trying to read between the lines here a little bit to say that, whilst we all appreciate the work the volunteer visiting inspectors currently do, creating a more official regime may help to professionalise it and, if we are talking about people giving of their time, help to encourage and expand the use of this.

The bill also allows for the remuneration of inspectors. The terms of any remuneration are still to be worked through—that is something that came out through the briefing—but it is envisaged that inspectors will be paid. It will be interesting if the minister has any further answers since the briefing. It provides for staff and resources for inspectors, sets out the functions for inspectors, provides powers for inspectors to request information from anyone involved in the provision of services and creates an offence for noncompliance, with a maximum penalty of $5,000.

I am keen to tease that out and explore the parameters because it seems that there are some potential unintended consequences in relation to that clause. Whilst we want to give official inspectors a strong mandate to be able to do their job, we also want to make sure that we are not in effect capturing people outside the system, as I will get to in the Law Society's submission at some point during my contribution. They raise a couple of scenarios in which potentially this clause can be used but may not be appropriately used.

This is interesting: it creates an obligation that, where the official inspector provides a report to the minister, the report is to be tabled in parliament within six sitting days. That is something new and it is something that I think is genuine and courageous from the government. Maybe they are thinking that by the time this first report is handed down they will not be the government and that it will become our problem. It creates an obligation on the official inspector to provide a report to the minister every two years.

I thought, 'Well, who would currently undertake that work? Who provides those reports?' There is the DCS annual report, but at the moment it appears that prisoners use the Ombudsman quite widely to hear their complaints. That is a process by which, in a limited fashion, these issues can become public. As I said, much of this work is currently done by the Ombudsman, who received 691 complaints from prisoners in 2016-17. When I look at the breakdown of how those complaints were handled, it gives us a greater picture.

I said that prisoners are people who have plenty of time on their hands, who write letters to anyone they think will listen. I can see the Ombudsman potentially being inundated with a whole heap of work that is frivolous, but I think that there are some instances where the Ombudsman's intervention is warranted, especially in relation to the improper use of restraints, which was something the Ombudsman highlighted in his recent annual report. He had a few scathing things to say about some of the conduct of DCS in relation to some specific incidents. I would hope that, if we are going to expand the use of the official inspector system, this offsets some of the work the Ombudsman does, as opposed to potentially duplicating it. Again, that is something I would love to tease out in committee.

The bill also revokes automatic parole for drug traffickers and dealers who are sentenced to less than five years' imprisonment. I had discussions with the Parole Board Presiding Member, Frances Nelson QC, a woman who I think is respected by everybody in this space. When you become a shadow minister, you go to talk to everybody, and it seems that there are groups of people who sit on both sides of the fence, whether they take a rehabilitative approach to post-offending options or they take the tough 'lock them up and throw away the key' type of approach.

Frances Nelson is somebody who I think takes neither approach. In every discussion I have had with her, she is firmly focused on what works and what does not work: if it works, you do it, and if it does not work, you do not do it. I think that that is actually the smarter way to go on these issues, and I hope that in future discussions on another bill in another place the minister and I can reach agreement about what works and what does not work.

Essentially, Frances Nelson said that she was happy with those changes. She talked about there potentially being a mismatch where others are not granted automatic parole for what she deems to be lesser offences in the drug offence space, while others may be eligible for automatic parole for more serious offences, which for reasons various have attracted a sentence less than five years. It is interesting to understand what the scope of that is going to be, and I will get to that a bit later through the submission from the Law Society.

The bill also bans the use of drones above and around prisons and bans the use of drones within 100 metres of a correctional institution. Again, this is something that we need to tease out. Are we talking about 100 metres above a correctional institution, or are we talking about 100 metres within, and does that create issues, particularly for the remand centre, for Yatala Labour Prison and for the Women's Prison? Are there going to be issues in enforcement of those areas, given the fact that they are highly built up and populated areas?

The bill also seeks to improve the provision of prisoner communications with law enforcement agencies. This is something that is quite interesting, and something we are definitely going to have to tease out through committee. What was presented to me in the briefing was that currently DCS has the power to monitor prisoner communications, and where there is information about an offence that has been discussed, that information must be provided to SAPOL. That makes sense.

This amendment seeks to clear up the circumstances in which information is provided but evidence cannot be. It seems that there is a situation currently where DCS rings up SAPOL and says, 'Hey, prisoner X has just talked about some drug deal that they have done a while ago,' or some pending drug deal that is going to be done and, 'We are telling you about this but, for reasons of legislation, we cannot give you a copy of that recording,' or various circumstances. Whilst I am keen to help the government to achieve this, to get this in place, as somebody who took a keen interest in the Surveillance Devices Act, I am keen to understand how those two things work together and also to understand a little bit more closely what this clause means.

The PSA has concerns in relation to this clause and whether or not they are captured as part of this. Legal practitioners are also a little bit worried about whether they are potentially going to be caught up in this, and potentially then whether there are issues in relation to attorney-client privilege that we need to ensure is protected. There are a number of things that we need to go through so that we can satisfy ourselves that this will do what we want it to do, and that is to help law enforcement to catch criminals and not unduly affect the normal processes in relation to offenders and their legal representatives.

The bill also limits contact between prisoners and their victims through mail. Again, this is what I understand from the briefing. If the bill allows the regulations to prescribe circumstances where mail can be rejected, it is proposed that this clause will be used to prevent prisoners from contacting victims and will automatically suppress victims' names when the victim makes a claim against a prisoner from the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund. The bill also seeks to make changes to the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund.

Essentially, what the government is trying to do through this clause relates to a couple of cases, notably the infamous case of Mr Bruno Tassone, who received $100,000 in damages from the state in relation to what he says was a mishandling by the department of his diabetes illness. That was quite an interesting debate in the public sphere; nevertheless, Mr Tassone got the money. I understand that people have 12 months to claim against that money, but Bruno was a drug dealer, and so anybody who came forward would be worried about whether or not claiming to be a victim of Mr Tassone might incriminate them in relation to illicit drug-taking behaviour. One wonders whether or not anyone will actually come forward. If the changes to the bill come into force before the end of Mr Tassone's 12-month period, this can come into effect for him.

The changes to the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund state that, after the specific victims have had a chance to take the money, 50 per cent of the remaining funds go to the Victims of Crime Fund. Again, I think that is to remedy the fact that potentially victims will not come forward to make a claim on this money. That makes sense to me. I know that some of the stakeholders have concerns in relation to that, but they are not concerns that I share. I can see the logic, if victims do not come forward, in putting that into the Victims of Crime Fund so that it can help all victims in some small way. The other 50 per cent would be quarantined to help prisoners with their rehabilitation and transition out of gaol, and that makes perfect sense.

The government has to be commended for the money they have put aside to implement the 10 by 20 strategy. It is a clear move away from the rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em days and seeks to achieve better outcomes. There is a bit of cynicism within the Correctional Services community about whether or not it is going to do any good, but I am of the firm belief that we need to give it a go because the current system that we have does not seem to be working. Our recidivism rate is too high, and that is an issue we are dealing with nationally.

The 10 by 20 strategy and what it seeks to do, from a principle standpoint, is positive. I really do hope that it comes into fruition and practice, especially if we are going to spend more money trying to house prisoners, if we are going to spend more money trying to get them job ready and if we are going to spend money helping them to develop networks and friendships that help to transition them away from the criminal behaviour that got them in trouble in the first place. They receive money whilst they are in prison and that should go towards their rehabilitation, because it is expensive.

It costs just over $100,000 to keep somebody in gaol and, with the amount of money that the government has put aside through 10 by 20, all South Australians are investing in trying to stop prisoners from reoffending, and it is only right that they themselves contribute towards that. It will be interesting to see how those first couple of programs—Work Ready, Release Ready and the new foundations program—come into practice. The government has a pretty tight deadline, especially in relation to new foundations, to try to get that up and running I assume before caretaker period, but I think it involves a pretty serious commitment from larger housing providers to provide some new housing stock for these prisoners as they transition out. That is going to be a challenge, but there is a definite need there.

I have had discussions with OARS in relation to the work that they do. Basically, they put on the table that to change someone's behaviour post prison they will need three things: somewhere to stay, a job and some better friends. It is amazing in its simplicity, but it is 100 per cent right. If a prisoner gets out of gaol and has nowhere to stay, they are forced into criminal behaviour to try to support themselves or they live in less stable circumstances that do not provide the ability for them to find work, because that is the second step. If they either do not have access to Centrelink or do not give themselves access to Centrelink or have not found a job then they are likely to turn back to criminal behaviour to support themselves.

They also need better mentors and better friends. As somebody who has operated a business in the northern suburbs, I have seen a lot of people come through. How people act and behave depends very much on the friends they choose to hang out with. I have seen people make a decision to move away from their drug-taking friends and make better decisions for themselves. They can do that, but only through the support of a new friendship network. If you get out of gaol and the group of mates waiting for you as you walk out the door are the same blokes you were mucking around with and got you into the mess in the first place, then your ability to break free from that cycle of offending behaviour that lands you in and out of gaol makes it a lot more difficult.

At this stage there is one clause that we will be opposing, and that is the removal of section 22(3) of the act, which requires that sentenced prisoners not be held in police cells when they have been sentenced to a term of longer than 15 days. I want to go through this in some small detail because it is something I have looked at quite closely. As I mentioned earlier, as a new shadow minister I thought one of the smartest things to do would be to have a look at the Correctional Services Act which governs this space. I only had to get a few pages in to get to section 22(3) which is fairly simple and provides:

Subject to this Act, a person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 15 days must not be imprisoned in a police prison.

The first step was to find out what a police prison is; helpfully, they are gazetted, and the gazetted regulations show that they are police cells. There are a number of cells at the City Watch House. There are cells currently being used at Sturt Police Station and Holden Hill Police Station; at various times Elizabeth and Port Adelaide have been used. It depends at any one time. It could be up to 60 or 70 cells, I think.

Essentially, we have used these police cells every single day since 3 November 2011. We know that because that is the answer the government gave us. They are used because the actual capacity of our prisons is beyond the approved capacity of our prisons. There are a number of surge capacity beds that exist within prisons themselves, and I assume that is things such as chucking a trundle down the middle of units in various prisons across the place.

But there have even been times—and we discussed this in the correctional services select committee earlier in the year—when the prison population was beyond the approved level and the surge capacity beds within our prison system. In fact, it seems like we even had to count the number of prisoners who were being held in hospitals to try to make sure that the number of beds was more than the number of prisoners in our system.

At estimates this year I asked a question in relation to how much money has been put aside for the use of police cells. Police cells are normally run by SAPOL, but essentially what happens is that when DCS want to take over the use of some police cells they have an agreement with SAPOL but DCS has to pay. In the first few years that they were being used—let's say 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014—there was no budget for DCS to use these cells, so they had budget overruns year-on-year to pay for the use of the cells. From memory, it got up to around $9 million a year that DCS was paying to use these police cells. Again, I say we have used them every single day since 3 November 2011.

In estimates this year I asked: what is the budget this year? The other change that had happened is that last year, maybe the year before, was the first year that DCS put money in their budget for police cells. I think that gave them the ability not to get their budget blowout story when they came before the Budget and Finance Committee in the months before the end of the financial year, having blown their budget.

This year in estimates the minister said to me, 'We have no budget this year for police cells because we are not going to use them.' I thought that was quite brave. In fact, I understand that we are using them. I understand that Holden Hill Police Station is currently being used, so it will be interesting to see how much of a budget blowout we have this year.

Anyway, in my search to understand what a police prison is, I ticked that off. I thought, 'Let's ask a question of minister Malinauskas in the other place in relation to the use of these police cells.' The Hon. Mr Wade asked a question on Thursday 30 March 2017: 'Can the minister assure the council that no prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 15 days is housed in a police holding cell? Can the minister assure the council that prisoners are not being transported from a prison or by bus or otherwise only to be returned to the same prison primarily due to overcrowding?' The minister's answer was as follows:

I thank the honourable member for his questions. It is well known and on the public record that the Department for Correctional Services do, from time to time, use police custody facilities to keep prisoners in custody, where it is appropriate to do so.

Tick. He goes on to say:

There is an understanding and a good collaborative working relationship, as I think all members would reasonably expect, between SAPOL and the Department for Correctional Services to ensure that there is the capacity to be able to use police cells for DCS purposes, if and when it's appropriate to do so, but at the same time doing it in a way that allows for the necessary functions and also police operations, as required.

I have an aside at this point to say that when I asked these questions of the SAPOL commissioner, he did confirm, in fact, that there is a good working relationship, but what he said was, 'Look, if we need the cells we will use the cells but, we will hand them over to them when we think that we can spare them.' Minister Malinauskas goes on to say:

Regarding the second part of the honourable member's question regarding the transport of prisoners, that is something that occurs regularly. There is a whole range of reasons why prisoners are transported between facilities. It could be access to rehabilitation programs, it could be for health reasons or it could be moving prisoners for reasons to accommodate visitation. There is a whole range of different reasons why prisoners are moved between facilities; that is, movement between facilities is part of the day-to-day operation of the Department for Correctional Services and is not remotely unusual in any way.

Mr Wade then asked a supplementary question. He said:

My supplementary question to the minister is: when the minister says that prisoners are held in police custody if and when it is appropriate, does the minister consider it appropriate that a prisoner who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 15 days is housed in a police holding cell?

The minister then answers in a way that makes me think that he does not know what he is talking about. He says:

Where appropriate agreement has been reached between both SAPOL and the Department for Correctional Services, yes.

What the minister has done in that answer is to basically condone illegal behaviour, and he has done so because it is clear that he does not know what he is talking about. It seems that he had not been briefed properly. We thought, 'Okay, that is a little bit odd. He is saying yes, they do do it.' That is evidence to me that either somebody does not know what is going on or they are essentially okay with breaking the law.

On Thursday 6 April 2017, the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services, Mr Brown, came before the Select Committee on Administration of South Australia's Prisons. He was asked by the Chairperson, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the following question:

When you talk about accommodating the prison population, at the moment how many prisoners do you have in police cells who have been sentenced for more than 15 days?

Mr Brown answers:

We don't accommodate prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 15 days in police custody facilities. That is not provided for under the Correctional Services Act.

As an aside here, it seems that he has read the Correctional Services Act, and I think that that is a good thing. It continues:

The CHAIRPERSON: And that hasn't been the case over the last 12 months at all?

Mr BROWN: Not to my knowledge.

The CHAIRPERSON: Would you take that on notice and just reassure the committee, whether it be in response by writing or—

And Mr Brown interrupts and says, 'Certainly.' So, lo and behold, in an answer to the committee on 22 May, in response to that question, the department gives the following answer:

A review of departmental records has determined that in the past 12 months, a small number of prisoners with a sentence of more than 15 days were accommodated in a police prison. Specifically, during this period of time there were 14 prisoners, from a total of 2906 police prison admissions, who fit this criterion. Two of these prisoners were held in a police prison for 10 days.

Of the 14 prisoners identified, three were moved the day after sentencing and four remained in a police prison for two days. These prisoners were considered to be in transit, in accordance with Section 26 of the Correctional Services Act 1982…and were suitably accommodated in police prisons, prior to appropriate prison accommodation being identified.

In addition, one of the prisoners who spent two days in police cells after being sentenced, had his sentence backdated and was discharged, sentence served from a police prison. In such circumstances, there is no benefit in transferring a prisoner to a prison, only to have them discharged in the following days.

The remaining seven occasions in which prisoners remained in a police prison were as a result of complex placement issues—

as an aside here I am going to say overcrowding—

including protectee status, mental health issues, behavioural issues and links to outlaw motorcycle gangs. Upon review, DCS acknowledges that these placements were not consistent with the requirements of the Act.

I can confirm that no prisoners with sentences of more than 15 days are currently located in a police prison.

The Deputy Chief Executive has written to General Managers to reaffirm the Department's statutory responsibilities under the Act, with respect to prisoners and their placement in a police prison.

That is about as close to a mea culpa as we are going to get, and thank goodness that was taken on notice, and thank goodness that has all been cleared up. Obviously, there was some resulting bad media for the government in relation to that, because clearly the government should not break the law. It seems now that instead of just complying with the provision, the government wants to get rid of it.

The reason we are opposing this clause is this: police prisons, or police holding cells, are not gaol cells. They are different because a police cell is designed to hold a prisoner for a very short period of time and a gaol cell is supposed to be a more permanent level of accommodation. It is not appropriate to put a sentenced prisoner in a police cell for any reasonable length of time. The reason it is not is that it has been illegal under this act, I assume, since 1982. Instead of wanting to comply with the law, the government want to change the law to the lowest common standard that they are currently enforcing, and that simply is not good enough.

The other reason I am confident we should oppose this amendment is that in South Australia we have the highest remand rate of prisoners in our system in the country: 42 per cent. Twelve hundred of our, roughly, 3,000 prisoners are on remand. We have an approved capacity at the moment of around 3,000 beds. I know that we have about 300 coming online at Port Augusta, which I think we are going to the opening of in a couple of weeks' time—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: The 14^th, I think.

Mr KNOLL: —on 14 November, and Mount Gambier Prison is due to come on board in, I think, April next year, with 300 extra beds coming into the system. But we have 1,200 prisoners who could be housed legally in these 50 or 60 police cells: 1,200 into these 50 or 60 cells. The remaining remand prisoners, I assume, are housed in prisons, yet the government says we cannot fill up those cells with remand prisoners and comply with this law easily. It is simply getting rid of this.

And this is the issue. The letter that provided answers to the select committee talked about there being some transitional issues. There were a couple of prisoners who were in there for 10 days. If it is a short period of time, that is less of an offence, but to simply get rid of the section suggests to me that the minister and the department want to use police cells for a more permanent, ongoing arrangement, and that is simply not good enough. You cannot just change the law because you do not want to comply with it. Given the fact that there are enough prisoners we can stick in these police cells, I cannot see a valid reason why this needs to happen.

So, without any evidence to the contrary, we will be opposing that clause, and, assuming the government insists on the deletion of this provision, we will be resubmitting that in the other place, because we do not think it is appropriate. The Law Society do not think it is appropriate and OARS also do not think it is appropriate for exactly the same reasons. In fact, they find this all a little bit incredible.

The bill also removes the restriction that stops the department from being able to force remand prisoners to be involved in work programs. I note that currently in the act there is an ability for prisoners who are on remand to be able to work. Currently, it provides:

A prisoner (other than a remand prisoner) is, while in a correctional institution, required to perform such work, whether within or outside the precincts of the correctional institution, as the CE directs.

The use of the phrase 'required to' suggests that there is an obligation, a coercive obligation, to do that. Subsection (2) provides:

A remand prisoner may, at his or her own request, and subject to any directions of the CE, perform any work that has been arranged by the CE.

So essentially, as I understand it, the arrangement is that if a remand prisoner wants to be involved in a work program they can request it, but they are not required to.

OARS does make a submission in relation to that—which I will get to when I talk about their submission—to say that this may be a bit tricky, but I do agree with the government that this is an important step. Even if a prisoner is in remand, and holding to the fact that there is innocence before being proved guilty even though someone has been denied bail and is in a correctional facility, I cannot see any harm in a prisoner having a productive way to occupy their day. Whilst this change may force some remand prisoners to get involved with work, I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing; in fact, in the prisons I have visited the work programs are extremely important in helping to give structure and purpose to a prisoner's day. I think that structure and purpose exist regardless of whether they are a sentenced prisoner or a remand prisoner.

The bill also allows restraints to be used on prisoners in certain circumstances. That is seen by quite a number of people as being a positive step, but it has been suggested by OARS that we need to make sure this is used only as it is needed and that this clause does not give rise to a broader ability for prisoners to be restrained in circumstances that are potentially outside the intent of this legislation.

The bill also changes the environment around the possession of certain items in and around prisons. It creates a new offence where a prisoner is found in possession of a controlled substance, or of an item prescribed by the regulations, inside the prison. That carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. It is assumed that this provision will supersede current possession offences as well as including contraband items such as mobile phones. I think this is a positive step. Having a mobile phone outside a prison is, in the vast majority of cases, a benign act, but having a mobile phone inside a prison is a completely different scenario. That is why we have put a policy on the table that I will talk about a little later.

It is assumed that, where possession offences are illegal outside a prison, currently those possession offences are what happens inside a prison. Essentially, we are going to jack up the penalty here and, given the alarming rates of contraband and drugs getting into our prisons, that is important. It does provide the CE with the ability to prescribe, in regulation, contraband items or items that would be prescribed by the regulations. For inside prison, that makes perfect sense. I think where we get into difficulty with this clause is outside prison; where a person other than a prisoner brings a controlled substance into a prison, that maximum penalty is doubled to 10 years' gaol. For other prohibited items, the maximum penalty is five years in prison.

That part make sense to me. We want to crack down on contraband. Former minister Malinauskas said, when he first came to the portfolio, that he would clamp down on this and that he had a zero tolerance approach to contraband, only to find that was pretty difficult to actually get anywhere on this. I think that whilst doubling the penalty to 10 years' gaol is a bit draconian, I understand that we are trying to send a very clear message here.

For me, the difficulty comes with this: this section also proposes amendments to introduce a buffer zone around prisons where increased penalties for possession of drugs and other contraband items—we are assuming such as unauthorised mobile phones—will apply. We were told in the briefing that the buffer zones will be set by regulation but will take into account the individual circumstances around the prison. There was no answer as to what would happen around Yatala Labour Prison or the Adelaide Remand Centre, and police cells are not included in this section.

Let me unpack that a little bit. Where you have a prison that is separated from the town, and I think about Mobilong to a large degree and I think about Mount Gambier and I assume the same happens at Port Augusta and Port Lincoln, where the prisons are far enough away from the towns that they are on their own and you can institute that buffer zone, essentially, if you are walking around within that buffer zone—and I do not know what we are talking about here, whether it is 100 metres or a couple of hundred metres—it is likely that you are up to no good, that you are trying to throw something over a fence or whatever.

The real difficulty comes when you are in a built-up area. I would like the government to explain, if a mobile phone is listed as a contraband item for the purposes of this section and if I have my phone in my pocket—and as a member of generation Y, I always have my mobile phone in my pocket—am I going to commit an offence if I walk past the Adelaide Remand Centre? The obvious answer here would be that we may not be able to have a buffer zone around the Adelaide Remand Centre, or even around the Yatala Labour Prison, because there is a footpath right out the front.

But if it means that we have a buffer zone around some of these other gaols and that works for those circumstances, then bring it on, but I think there are some real problems with this section in relation to those prisons. This is another reason why we should not allow sentenced prisoners to reside in police cells, because police cells, as I understand it, are not included in this section. If the idea here is to find ways to reduce contraband, then putting sentenced prisoners in police cells is not appropriate. It is why, again, we will be opposing this clause.

The bill also refers the determination of allowances for Parole Board members to the Remuneration Tribunal. I understand, looking at this, that currently what happens is the chief executive makes the decision and that essentially will be handed over to the Remuneration Tribunal. We think that is a positive step, but we would like to understand when the first review will be. Without having had the time to investigate completely, it does seem that our Parole Board potentially is remunerated less than their interstate counterparts and that the very good work they do goes a little bit underappreciated. I am reading between the lines here, but if a move to the Remuneration Tribunal will essentially spark a review and that review will look at what is happening around the country and will help to create parity with interstate regimes and the South Australian Parole Board, then that is a positive step and one that we support.

The bill also makes changes to the setting of parole conditions. Something that is a little bit contentious and we are going to have to tease out is that the chief executive will be able to accept parole conditions on behalf of the prisoner where the prisoner is either unable or unreasonably refusing to accept the conditions. I can see some merit to this, and Frances Nelson could see some merit to this. But it does raise some issues about whether or not the chief executive is the most appropriate person to accept those conditions, because there is a certain logic that suggests that if you are unable to accept the parole conditions because you cannot understand them, then how are you going to comply with them? I think there are some issues there that we need to tease out.

All in all, they are the major clauses of the bill. There are also a couple of changes here, and I am looking at amendment No. 7 which talks about deleting 'with the approval of the Minister' wherever it occurs and essentially moving those powers back to the chief executive. We are going to want to ask questions as to where and why that is going to happen and why it is that we are moving away from ministerial oversight, which we believe to be important, especially for the accountability of ministers in this modern age where it seems that public servants much more readily fall on their sword for things that could and should otherwise be the responsibility of the minister.

I did receive late a couple of submissions that I want to go through in part because I think that they are from people who certainly have credibility within this space. As always with legislation, you can draft an amendment that achieves what you are seeking to achieve and, because you see it as an amendment that can help solve a specific problem you have, you think the amendment is worthy. However, the reason we share these things around and have broad consultation is that there are often unintended consequences or things that we did not think about that, if we enacted this amendment, would have a negative effect on other circumstances.

I want to read a few sections from a letter from the Law Society to the then minister Malinauskas back in April. As was discussed at the briefing, there has been ongoing communication over a number of years that has culminated in this bill. Various stakeholders have made submissions on various aspects, and those submissions have been taken into account when drafting this bill. There are a couple of issues in this letter from the Law Society that correspond with some of the evidence we have received not only at our select committee but also issues that have been raised with me. The Law Society states:

With respect to other matters to be considered, I confirm that they are in two areas. The first concerns the inmates who suffer from serious mental health problems, and the second is more generally in relation to the inmate population.

I preface this by saying that there are varying statistics about the number of people in our prison population who live with a mental illness. Some suggest it could be as low as 20 per cent and others will put that figure a lot higher. The SA Prison Health Service made comment on it when they came before the select committee a couple of weeks ago. I do not have those figures in front of me, but essentially they were suggesting that they could be quite high and that, in fact, they are higher in the Women's Prison than in men-only prisons. The society states:

1. The number of persons incarcerated with serious mental health problems has been increasing steadily in recent years.

2. Amphetamine offending has severely exacerbated the problem.

This is something that we know anecdotally and from the evidence, and we in this place have been tackling it through legislative amendment for a while now. The Law Society goes on to state:

3. Requests for psychiatric reports in the area of domestic violence have also increased dramatically.

4. The closure of institutions like Glenside Hospital has also exacerbated the problem.

5. Sex offenders and high risk offenders (which have also been increasing) also require the preparation and provision of an expert medical report. It is often the staff of the Forensic Mental Health Services Unit that are permitted to prepare such reports.

6. By way of example of the increase in the requirement for psychiatric reports, the number of reports requested in relation to sex offenders and high risk offenders has increased from an historic average of 1 to 2 per year to 12 in the last 12 months.

That is certainly a scary statistic.

7. Overall, over the last 12 months, the Forensic Mental Health Services Unit has received about 850 requests for reports. This averages to a little over 16 per week. Even if the conditions for accessing inmates were to be ideal, the current staffing level to prepare that many reports, within the Forensic Mental Health Services Unit is very substantially inadequate. At least one further full-time psychiatrist is urgently required.

It will be interesting for the minister and Mr Palmer to see whether or not that request has been fulfilled.

In addition, in other States some staff are located within the prison or institutions like James Nash House. It would be far more efficient for psychiatrists and psychologists if there were some staff in the correctional facility.

8. The requirements for arranging and conducting an assessment of an inmate is a further exacerbation of the problem.

9. The Adelaide Remand Centre's infirmary was previously used for psychiatric assessments, but attending psychiatrists and psychologists have been advised that this is no longer available. They are also advised that they will be allocated between half an hour to an hour for an assessment depending upon the complexity of the case because, overall, only 2 hours per day, 2 days per week, is available for all inmates. Moreover, set times of 9.00am to 11.00am and 1.30pm to 3.30pm on two set days of the week are required to be utilised. This is unsatisfactory. For example, complex assessments require at least 2 hours. The allocation of only 4 hours per week, overall, results in substantial delays. A further exacerbating factor is that overcrowding is producing more regular unrest and resultant lockdowns. If a lockdown occurs during a period ordinarily set aside for an assessment of inmates, not only does the assessment not proceed but an additional allocation of time, other than the set hours, is not granted, essentially exacerbating that delay.

10. At Yatala, the interview room is tiny, dingy and claustrophobic. Moreover, the walls are effectively paper thin, so that conversations in the room are able to be heard outside of the room…

I assume that that creates issues for attorney client privilege and it is very difficult to conduct an effective assessment in such circumstances.

11. Where it is sometimes necessary to transfer an inmate from a country prison to the metropolitan prison for an appropriate psychiatric assessment, inmates are reluctant to comply because no assurance is given that following the assessment they will be returned to the original country prison…

13. The majority of psychiatric assessments are funded by the Legal Services Commission. However, at the Adelaide Remand Centre, as noted above, the infirmary is no longer made available and the clinic rooms that do exist are made available exclusively for court ordered psychological and psychiatric assessments. The practical result is that the normal visiting area is then required to be used for psychiatric assessments funded by the Legal Services Commission. This is unsatisfactory.

14. As a result of these issues, extensive delays occur in relation to psychiatric assessments. This includes assessments required as a pre-condition for release by the Parole Board with the end result that prisoners are spending longer in prison than is necessary.

We know that overcrowding is an issue and bed capacity is an issue. Court delays are another issue, but we need to look at these rate limiters so that we can actually reduce our prison population. I know it has been highlighted on the front page of The Advertiser in relation to the delays that exist within SAPOL and the e-crimes branch and the fact that it takes on average over 12 months to process a mobile phone.

As has been explained to me, if you are a drug dealer and you get remanded in custody, it takes 12 months to process your mobile phone. You need that mobile phone because in those text messages is the evidence that you were dealing drugs. If you get caught with an traffickable amount and you get caught maybe with a weapon or something, you need that communicative evidence to be able to prove that you were drug dealing. I understand that there is a case that took about three years to process where in the end the offender only got three months. We were essentially holding the bloke in gaol at $100,000 a year for two and a half years longer than we had to. So we need to deal with these rate limiters within the system, and if psychiatric assessments is one of them, then that is something we need to deal with.

The general issues go on. This is an issue that I want to talk about because it is something that our committee found. It is something that we have heard consistent evidence on and that is in relation to access to rehabilitation programs. Officers of the Public Service Association have noted that the shortage of prison accommodation is particularly in the area of high-security beds. That has cascading effects. Prisoners who are placed in a low-security environment who are better suited to a high-security environment expose themselves and other prisoners to harm and the possibility of increased sentences. It risks a more stressful environment and, consequently, altercations and possible lockdowns and riots.

We have seen that with the increased prisoner on prisoner violence. We have seen that with increased prisoner on officer violence within our prisons and it seems fairly easy to make a causal link between this concern and the lack of a proper high-security environment and the increase in violence.

There appears to be little or no education and/or support for those involved in the home detention scheme. The society understands that there has been a significant level of breaches relating to the failure to report as required in contraventions with respect to the use of drugs. That is quite interesting. It is probably not something that I have encountered before. While we have people in prison, we can give them access to rehab programs, but essentially if they are out on home detention, those schemes either are not available or not appropriate. The Law Society goes on to say that:

There are ongoing reports of prisoners being held for longer than is desirable in police cells at Sturt, Holden Hill and the city.

I think that has confirmed the issues that we talked about previously. They continue:

19. The shortage of appropriate accommodation, according to the level of risk, and generally the problem of overcrowding, is resulting in an inappropriate level of rotation of prisoners from one facility to another. This regularly involves the issue reported recently in The Advertiser newspaper concerning transfer by bus. It can be expected that as prisoners are unsettled, the risk of inappropriate behaviour increases and the risk of further offending and increased sentences that otherwise could have been avoided similarly increases.

Again, this is an issue that is exacerbated by overcrowding. If we were able to deal with it properly, it would help to cause less violence within our prisons but also help to actually reduce the prison population. They continue:

20. The PSA also identified an issue that, too frequently, prisoners would be brought to a prison facility only to discover that the bed available is not suitable for them and that they will need to be moved again. The Society understands that there can be a number of reasons for this including, the appropriate level of scrutiny and issues relating to bikie gang culture.

21. It is noteworthy that PSA officers overwhelmingly backed the concerns that have been expressed by medical experts relating to inmates with mental health problems and which have been addressed above. Both the PSA and the medical experts identified a need for a further facility dedicated to mental health problem inmates where the degree of mental health problem and security is not such as to require detention in a facility like James Nash House. The Society appreciates that this would require specific funding and a substantial expense.

That is something that I have heard, especially in relation to Ward 1 out at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, where more and more prisoners are being housed in Ward 1, which is a mental health unit within the Lyell McEwin Hospital. This is something that we are going to have to tackle. I know that the government has done a good job of increasing the number of infirm beds at Yatala for prisoners who are quite old and infirm, but this forensic mental health is definitely an issue that we need to deal with more and more. It goes on to say:

22. There are limited teleconferencing facilities at the correctional institutions and because they are being used increasingly by the courts, there is less ability to use them for the purposes of medical assessments or other reasons. Further, whilst the Legal Services Commission has direct teleconferencing facilities, the representatives of those accused not funded through the Legal Services Commission are not able to use those facilities. You are invited to consider the possibility of the Department for Correctional Services having, at its Adelaide office, a teleconferencing facility that could be used by representatives of those who are incarcerated for the purpose of teleconferencing in relation to their matters.

That, again, is another rate-limiting factor that we need to tackle. Again, these are simple things. I have been out and had a look at AVL in a couple prisons. I looked at use of AVL in Silverwater as well. These are good advances and I know that the department has been investing in them, but if we are able to deal with some of these rate-limiting issues, then I think we can have a more settled but also a more efficient prison system.

Here is an issue in black and white, and this is something that I have never been able to get to the bottom of despite asking, FOI-ing and trying to find everything. The Law Society says it is an issue, lawyers I have spoken to say it is an issue, letters from prisoners say it is an issue, other people in and around correctional institutions have said it is an issue. The issue is this:

23. The Society has previously noted that there are a number of prisoners who reach the end of their non-parole period and then experience a further delay in being released because the completion of courses, required as a condition for release, were not completed by that date. The Society understands that, not infrequently, this is the result of the limited availability of these courses and, again, it would appear to be a funding issue.

I know the government, I am going to say in the 2015-16 budget, put extra money into these criminogenic programs. I would hope that that has now fixed the issue. In a time when we have prisons overcrowded, we have a system that is bursting at the seams, and the government is investing huge resources in upgrading and creating more beds, if we have come to the point where we are holding prisoners in prison—and, again, I make no comment or pass judgement about the appropriateness of the head sentence in a non-parole period; that is something that is quite rightly determined by judges—and those prisoners are simply in prison because they have passed their non-parole period, still have not been able to complete those courses and are therefore kept incarcerated for longer than they should otherwise have to be, that is not acceptable.

Certainly, the letters that I have received suggest that that is the case. Again it is very difficult to get to the bottom of that, but this again would seem to be low-hanging fruit. Surely, there should be investment in the funding of criminogenic programs to make them available so that prisoners can complete them before their non-parole period.

I know that there is a desire that these courses be completed not that long before the non-parole period ends so the information is fresh in a prisoner's mind at the point at which they are released. I get that and I understand that but, again, this seems to me to be an area which has been identified where there could be positive change to help improve the efficiency of our system and also potentially improve the overcrowding problem, so this is something that we should be tackling.

Whether it is getting psychiatric assessments on time, whether it is getting courses done on time, whether it is improving teleconferencing facilities, these are day-to-day issues that can help to improve a system that is at breaking point. Similarly, it states here:

24. Similarly, once prisoners are discharged, there is little available by way of rehabilitation or assistance in reintegrating within the community. Despite the success of rehabilitation programs like the Bush program run from Port Augusta or the partnership that the prison had with BHP, those initiatives are no longer funded and that is regrettable. Moreover, on discharge, there is little assistance provided to secure employment.

This letter was written back in April. The government announced in May, I think, the initial 10 by 20. The budget had put the money on the table, and I understand that they have already gone out to tender for New Foundations. I am fairly sure that Work Ready, Release Ready should have gone out, but this is one key aspect that I am hoping the government is addressing through 10 by 20. They go on to say:

25. As you are well aware, a major issue is the ageing and inadequate infrastructure of the Adelaide Remand Centre and the male and female prisons in this State. Whilst prisoners and the community do not expect that prisoners will be housed in lavish accommodation, the current Dickensian environment is not conducive to effective rehabilitation which, as you have rightly acknowledged, is a key to reducing recidivism.

26. The members of the PSA with whom I met did ask me to remind you—

I am saying this as Malinauskas, but I assume that the member for Kaurna, the minister, has been offered the same. I know as shadow minister I have been given the same opportunity—

that you have promised to spend a day on the floor of a prison. If that were to occur, then I—

and this is Tony Rossi, the President of the Law Society—

would welcome the opportunity to be able to participate.

I know that the PSA put that standing offer out there to all and sundry to come and actually experience a day on the floor at a prison. I know that is something that I would love to take up. In my previous life I used to run a factory. There were about 70 or 80 people who worked in the factory. The only way I knew to run the place was to actually walk the floor four or five times a day and see for my own eyes what was going on.

I think that, essentially, what the PSA is saying to the minister is, 'Hey, come and do the same thing and you will actually see what it's like on the floor of a prison. You will get a greater and deeper appreciation.' I am not sure what sort of training would need to get involved with that, but, yes, it would certainly be a rewarding experience.

The Law Society also has, yesterday, provided a submission in relation to this bill. They say here that they received the letter on 19 October. They were allowed five business days to consider the bill, but the brief extinction of time is considered. However, the society notes that it is unaware of any reasons why this legislation should be rushed through parliament without proper consultation. I think it is because we have about three sitting weeks left and if we are to get this done before it is prorogued, then we are going to have to get our skates on.

There are a whole heap of issues that the Law Society raises that I want to tease out in committee. I will only go through some of the more general comments that they make in relation to a number of the amendments. I want to put those things on the record. I do agree with a lot of them, but I want this to contribute to the debate because I think that, depending on how the committee stage goes, we may need to look at some amendments between the houses in relation to a number of their concerns. It continues:

9. The Society is not aware of the government having produced an evidence based proposition of what community safety means, or what a court should take into account when considering community safety. Indeed, we note the experience in Victoria, particularly when Mr Kennett was Premier, that a heavy emphasis upon early intervention resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of criminal offences being committed.

Good on Jeff Kennett. Further:

The Society has previously alluded, in other submissions, to the importance of early intervention and rehabilitation when considering, overall, the safety of the community.

Again, I think this is what we are discussing now. I think the government and minister Malinauskas's change of heart in relation to rack 'em, pack 'em, stack 'em shows that what community safety can mean in different contexts is entirely different.

It does seem to me to be a lot of what minister Malinauskas did and what John Rau did, which is essentially to try to undo a lot of the harm that the rack 'em, pack 'em, stack 'em days did to the South Australian criminal justice system.

10. Furthermore, the Society considers that there should be no paramount object in the Act. The objects contained in the proposed section 3(2) are all important factors in reducing recidivism. For example, the proposed section 3(2)(c) is to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners, probationers and parolees. Such an object is fundamental to the safety of the community.

11. The Society questions whether the additional objects in section 3(2), suggest that section 3(1) refers to matters to be taken into account that are not included within section 3(2). That is, should the court have regard to other criteria, other than for example, the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into the community or the rights of victims of crime, as being the key factors in ensuring community safety?

12. This further highlights the need for clarification with respect to some of the objects and guiding principles of the Bill. The Society also notes that some of the objects included in section 3(2) may be better considered as guiding principles. The Society suggests that clause 5 be reconsidered and redrafted to clearly reflect the objects and principles to be taken into account in the application of the Act.

I think that very clearly sums up some of the concerns that I raised quite early on in my contribution, but that is something that we are going to have to get right if the objective of putting these objectives into the act is achieved. The Law Society are quite happy that the creation of official inspectors is put into this bill. They do have a number of concerns, but we can tease those out in committee rather than go through them now.

They do have a series of questions in relation to the powers to compel information and investigative powers of the chief executive. I share their concerns, given that during the briefing I was told that there is no specific reason for this to be put into the bill and that this was just something that they wanted to put in there. I do not accept that. Why are we going to make a legislative change if there is no reason for it? Their concerns are such that:

23. Furthermore, the proposed section 81T provides the Chief Executive with the power to require an officer or employee of the Department to appear at a specified time and place; require an officer or employee of the Department to produce a specified document or object that is relevant to the subject matter of the review or investigation; and require an officer or employee of the Department to answer truthfully questions put by the Chief Executive that are relevant to the subject matter of the review or investigation.

24. The Society notes that coercive powers of this kind have been traditionally reserved for investigations into serious criminal conduct or corruption…

They go on to say a heap of other things about why this must be put in and discuss the exceptional circumstances to justify their use. That is something that we are going to have to tease out in committee. They also query where, in other acts for other departments within the Public Service, this is done. They also have questions in relation to the confidentiality of information in relation to official inspectors. I agree with them on this. Essentially, they say that at the end of the amendments in relation to official inspectors, the bill provides that official inspectors not be FOI-able.

I can understand, in relation to individual cases, that you would not want those issues dealt with. But, as the Law Society notes, that is already covered as an exemption under the current FOI Act. We need to tease out why it is that everything that an official inspector does should not be FOI-able. Why should we not be able to get broad information about the work of an official inspector, knowing that the FOI Act has enough safeguards to be able to stop individual cases and personal information? As someone who has FOI'd a lot of things, any time a third party is mentioned, the FOI Act provides that the third party needs to be notified and consent to their information being disclosed. There are provisions that, as section 26(2) of the FOI Act provides:

An agency must not give access unless the agency has taken steps as are reasonably practicable to obtain the views of the person concerned.

So there is a right to privacy, and that is enshrined in the FOI Act. The Law Society goes on to have serious concerns, as I do, in relation to the assignment of prisoners to particular correctional institutions. The one thing I forgot to mention before that was interesting to me is that nowhere in the minister's second reading speech was there a mention of the fact that this clause was being deleted. The second reading speech was quick to espouse all the virtues in this bill, but somehow this pesky little clause did not make the second reading explanation. Maybe the minister was just trying to hide the fact that this little sucker was getting through. Unfortunately for the minister, we found it.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: We told you in a briefing.

Mr KNOLL: I did not ask any questions in the briefing. The Law Society has the same view as us, and that is that the removal of this clause is inappropriate.

There are some questions in relation to work by prisoners that we will get to. Prisoner mail is something that is quite interesting here, and the Law Society do raise a number of concerns in relation to prisoner mail. They have some real issues about prisoners who cannot read and write and may not be able to provide a nomination in writing and how essentially this clause will work in practice in relation to prisoners' mail being looked through. So, there are a whole number of questions about that, but we will get to that when we go into committee.

There are concerns on the record from both the PSA and the Law Society in relation to the power to monitor or record prisoner communication. Again, whilst I am supportive of the intent of this clause, the Law Society says that, essentially, the proposed amendment provides that regulations may, in relation to a communication of a kind prescribed by the regulations, be monitored or recorded and provides that parties to the communication must, at the time of the commencement of the communication, be informed of the fact. It is not clear why it is being suggested that prisoners may not be informed that the calls are being recorded. If that is the intention, the amendment is not supported by the society. The society does not consider there to be a valid reason to change the long-standing requirement. It is also consistent with the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 that a person be warned that their communication is being recorded.

The PSA want to know whether or not they are caught up in this as well, and want to ensure their right to privacy or at least to be notified, and that is something we can tease out in committee. Offences by persons other than prisoners in relation to buffer zones and how that will work in practice, again, the Law Society has a huge number of concerns. Essentially everything else they are talking about I think we are going to tease out in committee.

OARS also provide an amendment, and I must admit that OARS are extremely complimentary of the government and this bill. OARS agree with a whole heap of what the government is trying to do, but they do—surprise, surprise—agree with the opposition and the Law Society in relation to the amendment of section 22, where they say:

This amendment raises concerns. A government report from 2016 indicates that the Department of Correctional Services were able to utilise SAPOL facilities, 58 beds, as part of their demand management strategy. Police cells are not designed to accommodate prisoners for more than a night or weekend at most; therefore it is concerning that the bill proposes to remove 22(3), which currently prevents a person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding days from being imprisoned in a police prison.

OARS also go on to say that 'the suggested amendment in relation to 34(4)(d) raises a question in relation to the definition by which a child sex offence will be determined', and actually that is something that again the Law Society talks about. It seems to me from the bill (and I have highlighted the clause) that you do not need to also have been convicted of a serious sexual offence, that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender has also committed a sexual offence that is a ground for changing where a prisoner can have rights to have visitors.

The PSA basically said that this does not go far enough, that essentially where a convicted sex offender is in a visitors' area and any children are in there they are potentially put at risk, whereas others are suggesting that we roll it back. I think that is something we need to tease out to find that balance. I agree with the sentiment of what is trying to be achieved here, but I want to make sure that it is done in the most correct fashion. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.