Bills

Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

(Second reading debate adjourned on 21 June 2018.)

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): There are six clauses before us. Can we begin with clause 1.

Mr PICTON: Thank you Mr Acting Chairman. Can I say how good it is to see you at the table. I think it befits you very well.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Thank you for calling me Chairman.

Mr PICTON: Can I firstly ask the Deputy Premier whether she can confirm that there was not any consultation that the government undertook in the preparation of this bill, if not, why not? If there was, can she outline what consultation occurred?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Essentially, the Electoral Commissioner, Corrections department and, after the bill was prepared, the Law Society of South Australia.

Mr PICTON: Is she able to provide the comments that were received by those bodies as part of the consultation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In respect of the two former, we consulted with them and liaised with them in respect of development of the bill. They did not provide any written submissions. In relation to the Law Society, as I advised the member for Elizabeth, they publish on their own website, if they see fit, any submissions they present in relation to any bills.

Generally, for your benefit, in case you were not listening intently to the preceding debate, we would offer to provide if you seek a list of those who have been consulted, and I am happy to discuss that at the briefing that is provided. Otherwise, it is then a matter for the opposition to make inquiries, check on the website for those who publish them. In relation to departmental discussions, they are usually oral anyway, but they are obviously not made available. I hope that will assist with future bills.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if the Deputy Speaker can go through the statistics in regard to prisoner and prisoner voting—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): The Deputy Premier not the Deputy Speaker.

Mr PICTON: Sorry, if the Deputy Premier—I am sure she would do a good job as the Deputy Speaker as well—could go through the statistics in terms of prisoners, the number of prisoners who have voted in different institutions, including both the number of prisoners that voted by, as I understand it, a pre-poll type of arrangement that was taking place in a number of prison sites, as well as some prisons where only postal voting was allowed due to the high security for those prisoners. Out of that, how many would potentially be affected by the provisions of this bill, in terms of limiting the voting to people serving a certain sentence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I could not find on what page exactly I had previously provided this data, but I am happy to provide it again. It may have been in a slightly different form. As at 1 April this year, the bill would have impacted the voting rights of approximately 1,400 of the total prison population. This information is provided largely by the department for corrections in looking at the assessment of the definition proposed in this bill.

Mr Picton: Out of how many prisoners?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At the time, 3,250—not a very proud number, I would have to say, but, nevertheless, that is what we inherited. How many prisoners voted in person at the last election? There is a breakdown of those. There were 518 in person at the six different facilities, so not many obviously. Of the 141 postal vote applications received, 40 were returned, 26 were rejected and 14 were accepted. So we are talking about still fairly small numbers.

My recollection is that, once questions of invalidity are considered, that is, informal votes, we are down to only a few hundred who would have been affected by this legislation if they had voted. It was an estimate that was given. The difficulty in being precise about this is that, if we are able to identify the numbers that would qualify under this, that is, the number of years' imprisonment, etc., they would be removed, but we do not know how many of those would have given a formal vote or an informal vote.

I think the real gist of the question is that even if they, for whatever reason, do not cast a valid vote, how many would have attempted to exercise that right to vote? On the face of it, I suppose we are really talking about an attempt of about 500 plus 140-odd. As you can see, there is quite a large cull of the numbers that ultimately translate into valid votes, for reasons I do not know. It could be that they have not read the instructions properly. Perhaps they did not have a suitable how-to-vote card. I am not sure exactly why. I think how-to-vote cards are provided in prison. I will have to check that with the Electoral Commission.

Mr Picton: I don't think they are.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Aren't they? As I recall, they used to be in the booth in state elections, but, in any event, if they are not available in the mobile booths, then perhaps that is something we should look into. As to pre-polls, of course, they do not actually get a chance to leave prison and go out and line up for a pre-poll. If they did, they would have had to wait for a long time, especially at some of our pre-polls.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: A mobile booth? Yes, alright. Perhaps we will not go there any further. We did fight pretty hard to have pre-polls kept and we have won that argument.

Mr PICTON: Can the Deputy Premier outline what statistics she has in regard to how Aboriginal people would be affected by this provision, both in terms of how they would be affected as part of the broader population of prisoners and also any stats of Aboriginal prisoners who have voted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not going to be crystal clear from the data that we have, but of the total prison and home detention figure of 3,250, as I have indicated, the number that identifies Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders is 716. That is 22 per cent. The number within the scope of the bill is 1,400. The number within the scope of the bill who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, that is, prisoners who would have been disqualified from voting under the bill, is 218. That does not necessarily mean that they would have voted anyway, if I can put it as broadly as that.

Mr Picton: Do you have any stats on Aboriginal voting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not specifically, no, and I do not think we actually disclose. You could ask the Electoral Commission to go back and check the electoral roll for who had registered and whether they disclosed whether they were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. But I do not think they do that for the purposes of the electoral roll. I may be wrong; they may have that data, but the prison system does and that is what we are relying on.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: I have a couple more general questions. Can the Attorney outline what assistance the government provides for prisoners to vote either through the Corrections department or through the Electoral Commission? What assistance do they provide for the enrolment of prisoners to vote? What preparation do they provide for voting after they leave the corrections facility?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand the member raised in the briefing the question of what work is done by the Department for Correctional Services in terms of preparing prisoners to vote. They assist in their own facilities by distributing postal vote applications to prisoners at facilities where prisoners are able to vote by post—being the Adelaide Remand Centre, the Yatala Labour Prison and the Port Augusta Prison—and facilitating the attendance of electoral visitors at other prisons for prisoner voting.

If the member is referring to initiatives such as 'Have you turned 18? Have you enrolled to vote? Do you know that you are able to vote? Have you registered your change of address?'—all the information that is sometimes done by quite extensive campaigns of the Electoral Commission—Corrections do not follow that up. They obviously see that as a responsibility of the Electoral Commission. I do not know the answer to what they might do specifically. Obviously, prisoners have access to some facilities but obviously not all the time because there are restrictions on access to the internet and the like.

Nothing has been put to me to suggest that there is any impediment to any assistance in someone getting on to enrol to vote, and I think that has been confirmed by Corrections, and to have access to postal votes, should they wish to do so. I do not know of any specific programs that the political parties undertake in providing information to prisoners. I cannot ever remember being party to a program where the Liberal Party has sent out how-to-vote cards to the Remand Centre, Yatala or the Adelaide Women's Prison or the like. I do not have any in the seat of Bragg.

Probably a person who would be valuable in answering that might be the member for Hammond—he has a significant, secure facility—or of course the Minister for Correctional Services, who would probably immediately have this information available to him. In 40 years of campaigning, I have not ever had occasion either to visit a prison during an election campaign or hand out how-to-vote cards or forward them to a prisoner.

I have made sure that how-to-vote information and applications to register have been made available to constituents who wished to have their address kept anonymous. Sometimes they are being pursued by a spouse who is unhappy in that relationship, or they have been a victim of a criminal offence and their partner or the assailant is now in custody.

I have certainly worked with the Electoral Commission to assist those people to keep their address confidential and to remain protected through the election process. The member might be more familiar with what the ALP do. I cannot help you in that regard. Ask Michael Brown.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if the Attorney can also outline, in terms of the statistics, if she has these available, of the 3,250 I believe it was, prisoners and people in home detention in South Australia as of 1 April, how many of those are on the electoral roll? I would imagine that it would be possible for the Electoral Commissioner to be able to provide advice to the government on how many were enrolled and how many were not enrolled.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that there is not a matching of those on the electoral roll with the prison population at any one time, so we do not have that data for you.

Mr PICTON: I refer the Deputy Premier to Dr Victoria Shineman from the University of Pittsburgh, who I believe was visiting South Australia this week and who gave a talk in terms of this bill and the impact seen in the United States of disenfranchising prisoners, the impact it has later had on the prospects of rehabilitation for those prisoners. I ask the Deputy Premier whether she has seen the work that Dr Shineman presented in South Australia and whether the South Australian government has had consideration as to whether there would be detrimental impacts on reducing reoffending rates in South Australia because of this legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I start by saying I have not met Dr Shineman, nor have I read of her work. I think there was one other academic who I either read in the media or who made some comment—it might have been a radio transcript—suggesting something similar; that is, this was a human right of prisoners and they ought not be deprived of their right to vote even though their right to freedom of movement had been impeded by their incarceration.

That is not a view the government shares. It is not a view we have had people present to us in the lead-up to the announcement of this policy. To the best of my knowledge there was no commentary by Dr Shineman.

She may not have known about it. She might not have been watching the state election from Pittsburgh to draw her attention to this, but the view of the government that underpins this legislation is that people who have committed serious offences—that is, with a period of incarceration of three years or more—do not deserve to have a say.

Whilst some people may have a different view, that is the view of the government. For whatever reason, it has been the view of Liberal and Labor governments for a very long time. It underpins the commonwealth law which prohibits prisoners from voting in federal elections. I have not investigated this in detail, but I do not recall prime minister Rudd or prime minister Gillard rushing to amend the law to allow for serious offenders who are in custody to suddenly be able to have a restoration of their right to vote. Perhaps they had read Professor Shineman's treatise on this and were not persuaded with it either.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: I was wondering if the Attorney can outline the purpose of this amendment, and why it seems to have been drafted in such a broad way in terms of the information that could be provided.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The provision of information to the commonwealth Electoral Commissioner is obviously to ensure that, for the purposes of joint rolls, they are responsible for that. Legally, the process is to go to the commonwealth, they update both rolls and then that information is utilised for the purposes of state and federal elections.

I am advised that apparently there is a proposal to consider, that the Department for Correctional Services provides directly to the South Australian Electoral Commissioner the names of prisoners who should be disqualified from voting. I am also advised they can provide it directly to the state. This is really just for the purposes of identifying it on the roll. The keeper of the data is the Department for Correctional Services, so at some stage it needs to be transferred across.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 5 and the certified list of electors, I was wondering if the Attorney could also explain why this clause is necessary. It seeks to tinker with the electoral roll in its amendment of section 68(1) by changing to 'electors enrolled in relation to'. Is that essentially because Electoral Commissioner will no longer the be using the electoral roll but instead is using this construct of the electoral roll minus these prisoners to conduct the election, and hence this is the workaround to make that happen?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Section 68 relates to the certified list of electors, that is, the list of electors in each electoral district used for elections. They are referred to as the 'roll extracts'. This is different from the whole electoral roll. The amendments in this clause have the effect that the name of the prisoner who is disqualified from voting will not appear on the certified list. Their name will still be on the roll. They are on the roll, but within the districts of wherever they live and most of them, although some will be on home detention, will be within the precincts of the electorate of wherever the prison is situated.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr PICTON: I was wondering why the Attorney and the government have picked three years as the cut-off date for voting eligibility under this section, rather than specifying particular offence types they might be concerned about. Can the Attorney also clarify that the three years applies to the whole sentence. For instance, if somebody were in prison serving a three-year sentence and it was the last day before they were released—so they only had one more day to go—would they still be captured by these provisions and not be able to vote?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Three years as a cut-off time has been selected because it is consistent with the commonwealth and no other jurisdiction does it by offence type. I think it is fair to say that seriousness can be measured by the period of imprisonment, irrespective of the nature of the specific offence. In answer to the second question, they get into the last day, yes, they would still be caught.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney also outline why the government has made a decision in regard to two categories of prisoners. Firstly, in terms of home detention, I understand that home detention is not covered by the commonwealth model, which you said you have based this on, so that is an extension to that; and, secondly, in terms of people on parole, people who have not been sentenced for anything, to clarify, are they covered by this legislation or not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Home detention is included because it is a form of imprisonment, detention, whatever. It is not a luxury hotel time. Persons are to have their movement restricted within the confines of a home rather than in a prison. No doubt it is more lenient, in that sometimes they can leave to go to medical appointments, training programs, employment and the like, but it is still restricted. It is something we gave considerable thought to, but we say that if the prison term exceeds the three years, as we have discussed, whether they are serving it at home or in a prison forum, it should apply.

Parole does not apply. Parole is something that is earned as a result of usually being a good prisoner, being compliant with rehabilitation programs, in the undertaking of them and learning from them. If they have earned the right to be released into the community, whilst they might be under some conditions that are specified as to their conduct, they have earned the right to resume having the right to vote.

Mr PICTON: I want to ask a question in relation to the new subsection (5)(b)(iv)(B), where the Attorney is inserting a power to allow regulations to be prescribed in terms of other people who could be detained. This is a bit concerning to us, in regard to the scope of those people who could be added by regulation and be excluded under this bill from voting.

Essentially, we want to know: is this something that the government wanted to be included? Who asked for it to be included? What could it be used for? I would have thought at least one category of people who would be concerning for the parliament, if it were to be used, would be people on a mental health detention, for instance, or the like, and who could be added under this regulation-making power. Why is this happening? Do any other jurisdictions have a provision like this? From what I could see, this is not something that the equivalent commonwealth legislation has. Why do we need this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the question of the prescription being added there, can I firstly say that, because the whole of the definition requires that there has to have been a person in custody who committed an offence and has been imprisoned for the purpose of the offence, someone caught under the mental health circumstances is not in that category. They have not committed an offence.

In relation to the question of what else it could then relate to, to allow some flexibility in what type of corrections facility we might allow, let me give you an example. The previous government passed laws in relation to sentencing that allowed for intensive corrections orders. At the moment, they are available for 12 months. That may change and they may be available in other circumstances, which would overlap with the same penalty regime that attracts a disqualification from being able to vote.

If we allow the flexibility to cover that, then we can bring those into account. I think the member should be reassured, as others would be, that we are still only dealing with people who have been convicted of an offence and given a penalty of three or more years' imprisonment. We are still talking about people who, in that specific category, are not those who end up in our prison for different reasons. For example, being detained or covered under the Mental Health Act. I see that as an entirely different matter because they are not qualifying in the first step of having to be convicted of a serious offence.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I thank the Deputy Premier for answering the questions from the opposition in such detail. She might recall that, when we discussed a previous bill around those offenders who had been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and who were to be considered for particular types of release on licence, we looked at the arrangements around how they may or, more to the point, may not be released on licence. Without drawing the Deputy Premier's attention to a particular line here, could she perhaps explain for my benefit how these provisions would apply to someone who has served a sentence and would be able to be released on licence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for raising this. It has been considered and hence forms part of amendment No. 1—which I am about to move—to deal with that very issue to make it abundantly clear that we are not intending to capture those.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Would the Deputy Premier prefer me, perhaps, to withhold my further questions on that matter until we consider the amendment. I am happy to do that if that makes the discussion we have on the amendment a little more complete. Unfortunately, I walked in part way through the committee stage of this bill. I did have a question related to young offenders. Has that been canvassed in the bill and, if so, how, if I could frame the question like that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: People under the age of 18 years are not entitled to vote yet, thank goodness. They are entitled to provisional enrolment. This will not change. Where a person turns 18 and is detained in respect of offences committed as a youth, they will be ineligible to vote if the length of their sentence exceeds three years. This is unlikely to be a frequent occurrence for young people, where the maximum sentence of detention is three years. A young person would have to have been sentenced as an adult to receive a sentence long enough to disqualify them from voting.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I appreciate that because I think that, on the face of it, it might have seemed like a strange question, that somebody who is a young offender, that is, under the age of 18, would not, of course, be entitled to vote, not meeting the minimum age criterion. However, in the subsequent part of the Deputy Premier's answer she did get to the nub, I think, of the circumstance, or type of circumstance, that I was more interested in. That is where an offender has been convicted of a crime and they are under the age at the time of conviction.

They would, under the guise of this bill of course, have to be sentenced for a term of imprisonment of more than three years, and that three-year period might extend beyond their turning 18. That, of course, then raises a subsequent series of considerations, not the least of which is: can somebody who is incarcerated as a young offender, albeit with a sentence longer than the three-year qualification period for the terms of this bill (or disqualification period if I am, perhaps, speaking a little more accurately), are they able to enrol to vote in any event from their place of incarceration, so that from the age of 18 if they were otherwise able to vote or otherwise released from imprisonment that would entitle them to vote?

I realise I may be asking a question that goes beyond the realms of not just this bill and the act it seeks to amend and perhaps looks at provisions of, I am guessing, the Electoral Act as to whether somebody is able to enrol in the circumstance which I have outlined, but do the provisions of the bill and the explanation that the Deputy Premier gave earlier cover off in that situation as well?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct. There is no impediment by virtue of this bill to the current law under the Electoral Act, which enables a person to apply to enrol from 16. There are certain other qualifications that are set out in section 29 of the Electoral Act to qualify, and things such as 'no person is entitled to be at the same time enrolled for more than one subdivision', etc. There are special rules there. There is another area at the other end, if I can talk about the grey nomads. They are affected by this enrolment strategy as well.

For example, if they leave South Australia—where they might have lived all their lives—buy the caravan, drive off into the sunset and have no fixed address even if they have a postal address at their child's home here or in another state, they are off the roll. I think that is remiss. I think they ought to be able to register, especially if they are able to identify some connection with the state. I think that needs to be dealt with. Whilst there is some provision for itinerant persons, it is very difficult for us to deal comprehensively with the grey nomads. But at the children's end—whether they are in prison, in a playground, in a school or anywhere—if they are 16 and they are South Australian, they can enrol.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I had not contemplated the conundrum facing grey nomads, although some might argue that they are entering another form of imprisonment in pursuing that type of recreation.

The CHAIR: Don't be unkind, member for Lee.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I guess it depends who they are travelling with and how well they take to confined spaces with one another. I want to move back from that diversion. I appreciate the Deputy Premier's explanation about those who are to be released on licence. The Deputy Premier has an extraordinary, impeccable and somewhat intimidating memory for these matters, so she might be able to assist me with this. When we were contemplating the previous legislative changes surrounding those people to be released on licence, my recollection was that it was around certain types of offenders only.

The court would consider the appropriateness or otherwise of those people being released on licence, given their histories, offending and impecuniousness, I think was a term that was used in this place. Are there other categories of people who are not those types of offenders to whom this bill would apply? Perhaps they are not the types of offenders we dealt with in that bill, but they might be eligible to be released on licence. I have almost confused myself in asking that question. Did it make sense to you, and would you like me to have another and better go?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not quite sure what the question is, but can I just be clear about this: if you are on home detention and the three years apply, you cannot vote. If you are on parole, you can vote. If you are in indeterminate detention—that is, an order has been made for a continued detention—you cannot vote with the three-year rule. If you are released on licence, you can vote.

The principle to the sum degree is in relation to parole and release on licence; that is, there is a threshold, whatever the offence and whatever the circumstances, where either the Parole Board or a judge is making a determination that you are fit to go back into the community generally. There might be other restrictions—you cannot drink alcohol, you cannot talk to certain people, all those things—but, under this bill, in those categories you are restored the opportunity to vote if you wish.

Mr MULLIGHAN: With parole, can you just—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We covered parole earlier, but just to be clear: if you are in prison or on home detention or if you are on extended detention, you cannot vote. If you are on parole or on licence, you can vote. To be clear on the licence, we are adding in an amendment just to make it abundantly clear.

Mr BROWN: Can I say how pleased I am to ask a question of the Deputy Premier on this bill. Can the Deputy Premier outline to us what other jurisdictions nationwide are doing with regard to prohibiting people who are on home detention from voting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are not aware of any other jurisdictions that specifically refer to it.

Mr BROWN: Can the Deputy Premier outline to us what other jurisdictions are doing to prohibit young offenders from voting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I indicated, perhaps the member was not quite listening attentively at the time, but young offenders really are not going to be caught in this situation because it requires a three-year period, and young offenders by definition are under 18 and cannot vote.

Mr PICTON: Does anyone else have a similar provision to what you are proposing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will check between the houses but we are uncertain as to whether the other jurisdictions have gone into it in such detail. Of course, in the commonwealth this has been operating for a very long time, so I am sure if there were any problems the Electoral Commissioner would have alerted us to them.

We have tried to cover off and deal with some of the peculiarities we have in South Australia, because not everybody has extended supervision orders or indefinite detention. They are pretty novel, introduced by the previous government to this parliament. I suppose we have seen a few flaws in relation to that but, for the purpose of this exercise, we are not here to debate that. We make the point that we have those four different categories that prisoners can be in, and we have tried to do the best we can to make sure they are protected.

The CHAIR: Attorney, there are four amendments standing in the name of the Minister for Education. Would you like to move those?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will.

The CHAIR: Are you moving them en bloc?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to if it helps. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Education–1]—

Page 3, lines 13 to 18 [clause 6(2), inserted subsection (5)(a)(i) and (ii)]—

Delete subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and substitute:

(i) —

(A) the person is in custody serving 1 or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for 1 or more offences against a law of this State, the Commonwealth or another State or Territory; and

(B) the total period of imprisonment or detention liable to be served is 3 years or more; or

(ii) the person is subject to an order for detention under section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2017 or section 23 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (other than a person released on licence under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2017 or section 24 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988); or

(iii) the person is subject to a continuing detention order under section 18 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015; and

Amendment No 2 [Education–1]—

Page 3, lines 21 and 22 [clause 6(2), inserted subsection (5)(b)(i)]—Delete subparagraph (i)

Amendment No 3 [Education–1]—

Page 3, line 23 [clause 6(2), inserted subsection 5(b)(ii)]—Delete 'prisoner' and substitute 'person'

Amendment No 4 [Education–1]—

Page 3, line 26 [clause 6(2), inserted subsection 5(b)(ii)]—After '2017' insert:

or Part 3 Division 3A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988

It might be quicker if I run through them. Amendment No. 1 standing in the name of the Minister for Education seeks clarity, as I have indicated, as to the categories of detainees. The bill will apply to a person who is in custody serving one or more sentences of imprisonment or one or more offences against the law of a state or the commonwealth or other state or territory. The total period of imprisonment or detention is served is three years or more. This is consistent with the language that appeared in the bill as it was introduced.

Amendment No. 1 goes on to provide that the bill also applies to an offender who is incapable of controlling or unwilling to control their sexual instincts and is subject to an order for detention under section 57 of the Sentencing Act, the predecessor to the provision under the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act; and a person who is subject to an order for detention under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015.

These are types of ongoing detention orders that can apply only when a person has already served a period of imprisonment for serious offending. It is considered that a person on one of these ongoing detention orders should not be able to vote.

That is a replication of what I have said in bits in the last lot of questions. I trust that is clear. If amendment No.1 is supported, then amendments Nos 2 and 3 are consequential. Amendment No. 4 ensures that this bill applies to people sentenced for three years or more imprisonment to be served on home detention irrespective of whether they are sentenced under the new home detention provisions of the Sentencing Act 2017, or the predecessor provisions of the Criminal Law (Sentencing Act) 1988. This means that anyone who has been sentenced to serve a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more, or home detention, will be prevented from voting.

Mr PICTON: So the amendments are all being moved en bloc. Does that mean I have only three questions for all four of them?

The CHAIR: It does. We checked the standing orders a moment ago.

Mr PICTON: And I have no ability to object to them being moved en bloc?

The CHAIR: No.

Mr PICTON: That is disappointing. I will try to ration my three questions as best I can.

The CHAIR: You have support amongst your colleagues, I am sure.

Mr PICTON: That is true, but they might have different questions.

The CHAIR: Let's see how we go. At this stage, I would prefer to see three questions only from each member on the amendments that have been moved en bloc.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the amendments that have been moved en bloc, can the Attorney essentially guarantee for the house that this is now going to cover anybody who has been detained without licence under those provisions that we have long debated in the last couple of months in relation to people who are unable to control their sexual instincts? Why were those provisions not considered as part of the original legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a bit of a moving feast, I would have to say. We have changed the Sentencing Act and that is why there is some clarity being sought here to try to manage the old correctional laws in relation to sentencing and the new Sentencing Act, which was a wholesale rewrite. I think it is fair to say that, in South Australia now, we have more sophisticated sentencing options in respect of persons in custody. We have two new categories that relate to those who are unwilling or unable to control their sexual instincts and then we have another category of high-risk offenders, which can include people who are very violent.

I think it is fair to say that we have a bit more of a sophisticated sentencing regime. Other states do not have that to the same degree. Ours has been a bit of a moving feast. We have tried to make sure that we are following it, and so some of that did not apply when we introduced this under the Minister for Energy when he was just the member for Stuart.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand, but what I am saying is that, since the previous legislation, things have changed and we have also progressed a bill and changed things again. The member might remember the Humphrys legislation, for example. So we are trying the best we can to keep up with other substantive amendments and to make sure that it is clear who is in and who is out.

Mr PICTON: In relation to amendment No. 2, from what I can read, this seeks to delete subparagraph (i) of (5)(b)(i) in relation to deleting a prisoner within the meaning of the Correctional Services Act 1982, which seems odd to me in that I would have thought that that is the key thing that we are trying to include. If I am correct and that is what is being deleted, why is that being deleted? Is that because you have received advice that that was incorrectly drafted in the original place as well and hence does not need to be defined under (5)(b)?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clause 6(2) of the bill proposes a new section 69(5)(b) of the Electoral Act. It contains a list of categories of people who are included within the scope of the phrase 'in custody serving 1 or more sentences of imprisonment or detention'. The Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill, as it was introduced, included in this list a reference to a prisoner within the meaning of the Correctional Services Act. That reference is no longer considered necessary, having regard to the specific categories of detainees that are referred to in the text inserted by amendment No. 1. In going into the specifics in amendment No. 1 and by making it clear, we do not need this anymore.

Mr PICTON: In relation to amendment No. 4—adding 'Part 3 Division 3A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act'—I was wondering if the Attorney can outline who are the people who would be covered by that section of the Sentencing Act, and why did the government in its original bill not think to include those people within that section?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that this was to capture the people who were sentenced to home detention under the old act, that is, the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. It was there in the middle, so it was to capture them; otherwise, they would escape and be out there voting.

Amendments carried.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Page 3, lines 29 to 33 [Clause 6]

Delete subparagraph (iv)

My amendment deletes the regulation-making power under new section 69(5)(b)(iv). Originally, it was just to delete subparagraph (iv)(B), but I am advised by our learned friends at parliamentary counsel that we really should delete all of subparagraph (iv) because, in legal drafting terms, the rest of it would not be 'doing any work'.

It is important that the government only have regulation-making powers where we are talking about depriving people of their rights where there is a clear and necessary reason for that to happen. I do not think that the Attorney has outlined in her explanation what the reason for doing this would be. I do not think it is necessarily a power that is in place in other acts that we see around the country in this regard.

Hence, I recommend to the parliament that we do not give the government the ability to add additional people whom the parliament has not specifically prescribed, as this should be applying without some parliamentary consideration of the matter in legislation, rather than in regulation. Hence, I propose that we delete this section and, if the government later decides that it wants to come back with other proposals for other people who should be subject to this, that should be something that the parliament should consider on its merits and not by regulation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I accept the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.