Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 June 2018.)

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:23): I rise to speak to the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018 and to indicate the opposition's general support for the bill. Indeed, it reflects—

The SPEAKER: Are you the lead speaker, member for Elizabeth?

Mr ODENWALDER: I indicate that I am the lead speaker. The bill reflects some of the priorities of the previous government, the previous minister, previous ministers and, of course, it is in general aimed at reducing the threat and problem of drugs in prison. It reflects a commitment by the Liberal Party to try to stamp out drugs in prison as part of their broader war on drugs, and we will see how that goes.

In terms of the bill, we support it as far as it goes. It reflects a small part of a much larger body of work that was in train last year but, as I said, we do support the general aims of this bill and the general aim to reduce drugs in prison. I think we all agree on that. It is a matter of occ health and safety for staff in prisons. It is a matter of safety and health for the prisoners themselves, and no-one could argue with the intent of this bill.

The bill does three general things. Firstly, it allows for the testing of prison officers, which formed part of the previous government's bill. It provides for the testing of visitors to the prisons, and we will explore that more in the committee stage. It also focuses quite a bit on the threat of outlaw motorcycle gangs in prisons in particular and not just outlaw motorcycle gangs but any organised criminal element involved in taking drugs into prisons.

As I said, we support the general thrust of this bill, shorter as it is than the bill put forward by the previous minister in the previous government. The previous bill, the 2017 amendment bill, did a number of things, including some of those outlined in the current bill. I have foreshadowed that I intend to move certain amendments to this bill, not because I think that there is anything wrong with this bill but because it does not go far enough. In our previous bill, there were several measures, including an inspectorate of prisoners, which are not addressed by this bill.

I have focused on four elements of the previous bill that I think could very easily be incorporated into this bill without troubling the house at all. I have chosen them deliberately for that. I do not want to hold up this bill; I think that it is important and that the safety of prisoners and prison staff is of paramount importance. I have met with the PSA and groups of corrections officers about this. They are very much in favour of drug testing both prison officers and visitors to prisons.

I have some general questions about how far the provision goes in terms of visitors. I understand that it is targeted at tradespeople and those kinds of people who visit prisons from time to time who may be in a position to take drugs into prisons. Unlike the previous bill of last year, it does not address the problem of drones, unmanned aircraft and that sort of smuggling into prison, but I have left that alone in this instance. I have focused on four amendments, which I will move in the correct form at some point. In brief, these amendments are simple enough and coherent enough with the current bill not to trouble the house too much further.

The first is the introduction of buffer zones around prisons regarding the possession and trafficking of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. At present, there are various offences. We have just been through a debate about the penalties for the possession, trafficking, etc., of different drugs. My amendment intends to do what the provision in last year's bill intended to do, which is to create an area around a prison where the penalties for possession and/or trafficking is significantly increased to reflect the fact that drugs near prisons are more dangerous than drugs farther away from prisons. They are more of a threat to the prisoners and the prison staff than they would be if there were farther away, so the introduction of buffer zones is the first very simple amendment I would make to this legislation.

The second is the prevention of automatic parole for offences of dealing or trafficking drugs. Currently, prisoners who are sentenced to less than five years' imprisonment for offences of dealing or trafficking drugs are eligible for automatic parole. This provision would reverse that. Again, it is aimed at discouraging the use and/or the trafficking of drugs into prisons. Another sensible measure, which I think would not trouble the house at all and would require minimal debate and minimal change to the act, is to prevent prisoners from contacting directly or indirectly any victim, alleged victim or persons associated with their offending.

At the moment, there are provisions around who prisoners can and cannot contact. The CE has a lot of discretion in this area, but this will make it absolutely clear that unless there are clear, extenuating circumstances—which, of course, sometimes there are with family members and so on, including spouses, children—and, again, the CE's discretion comes into this a lot, the general principle, the default position, would be that prisoners are prevented from contacting victims or persons associated with their offending. Of course, this also marries well with the focus on outlaw motorcycle gangs. The intention is to disrupt and break up gangs and make it more difficult for them to ply their business whether it is within or outside prisons.

The last amendment is not directly related to drugs in prison but again is a very simple amendment and one which was in the 2017 amendment bill. It is a very simple measure, but I think a very sensible measure and one which could hardly be argued against, to prevent people under 18 from visiting prisoners with any convictions for child sex offences whether those convictions are related to the imprisonment or not. The current legislation, rightly so, prevents people under 18 from visiting prisoners with a current conviction for child sex offences. So, if they are in prison for child sex offences, it prevents people under 18 from visiting them. It is a very simple amendment, which broadens that out. Anyone who has ever been convicted of child sex offences is prevented from having visitors under the age of 18.

Foreshadowing those amendments, I look forward to debating them and to hopefully seeing their very simple insertion into the bill. I foreshadow that we are also doing work on further enhancing the Correctional Services Act later on down the track, but we will see where these amendments land us and we will do that body of work at a later date. Pending my amendments, I support the bill and indicate the opposition's support for the bill, and, even with my amendments, I look forward to its speedy passage through the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:32): I rise to support the bill. I am glad to hear the opposition is indicating its support, albeit possibly subject to moving certain amendments. The bill ought to be passed and passed efficiently by this house. It is yet another delivery on a Marshall Liberal government commitment. In a refrain that is becoming increasingly familiar to this house and this parliament, and indeed the community of this state, the Marshall Liberal government is a government that is delivering on its commitments. It is a theme that will resonate through the course of this very important week in this 54^th parliament.

The Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018 delivers on a commitment. We have brought it forward with the intent to make sure that we do all we can to exclude drugs from our prisons. It is through a means of sensible testing processes that are to be introduced by the bill, and it ought to take strides in ensuring that we do all we can to make sure that officers, employees and applicants for such roles, and visitors to our correctional institutions, so far as we can control it, are doing so without being under the influence or bringing drugs with them.

As has been referred to already in the debate, the bill will introduce, importantly, a new part 7A to the Correctional Services Act 1982. That will provide for a new drug and alcohol testing scheme. Importantly, new part 7A sets out the structure within which regulations for the procedures and processes around testing will occur. Before addressing the elements of those processes to be the subject of regulation, I want to highlight that this is intended to serve the purpose for which it is intended and is not to be used for other broader purposes.

Section 81X(2) of the legislation within new part 7A makes clear that the results of these testing and analysis processes conducted under new part 7A, including any admission or statement by a person that relates to that process, are not admissible in any proceedings outside disciplinary proceedings under the Public Sector Act 2009. So it ought to be understood very clearly that what is going on in terms of this testing regime is targeted at ensuring that there are means at the disposal of those administering our correctional facilities to ensure that they can achieve a practical testing process in the interests of ensuring that our correctional facilities are free from drug and alcohol but that it is not going to operate as a de facto means of acquiring incriminating evidence for other purposes.

As I referred to earlier, there will be a new and thoroughgoing regime. The regulations pursuant to new part 7A will contemplate the procedures for the testing. They will, again without limiting the generality of the regulations that may be put in place pursuant to section 81W, provide for the process of authorisation of persons who will conduct drug and alcohol testing and operate the necessary equipment for that purpose. They will contemplate the way in which the collection of biological samples is done: how they are taken from people, the analysis of those samples and test results, the approval of devices for the purpose of conducting those tests and the use of the results of testing in those circumstances.

To refer once again to my remarks in relation to section 81X(2), they will contemplate prescription for the circumstances that will amount to a defence to disciplinary proceedings under the Public Sector Act 2009 relating to those procedures and any proceedings for breach of the regulations that might ensue, and evidentiary provisions to facilitate the proof of matters in those particular circumstances. Further, and unsurprisingly, it is contemplated that those regulations will provide for the confidentiality of test results, the destruction of biological samples and for the protection of those involved in taking and in conducting the tests and liability for their actions and omissions.

The new part 7A regime is, again, typical of the reforms that this new government is bringing to this house, is legislating for without delay and is typical of other measures in the government's program directed towards practical outcomes. It is directed towards improving the circumstances in which those who serve in our correctional facilities are working and operating. It is directed to ensuring the practical outcome of the reduction of alcohol and drugs and, dare I say, working towards the eradication altogether of those influences in our correctional facilities and it is doing so in a practical and stepwise manner. This is not aspiration based on inputs with who knows what result; this is a manual for practical outcome.

I am sure that, in line with what this bill will set out to achieve, we will look at the practical outcomes, the practical improvements that flow from its implementation, and encourage honourable members on all sides to do the same. We are endeavouring to ensure that we achieve better results within our Correctional Services institutions and that is what this bill endeavours to do.

The bill also provides for the exclusion of persons from correctional institutions. It makes sure that there are powers introduced to ensure that those who are found to be bringing such items into our correctional institutions may be excluded from a specified correctional institution, all correctional institutions of a particular class or, indeed, all correctional institutions, either for a specified period of time or until further order. Again, with a view to a practical outcome, it is true to the government's objective to allow for no tolerance whatsoever to drugs in our prisons .

More than that, it is a practical action to make sure that those who would attend and be a bad influence within our correctional institutions will no longer have the opportunity to do so. Prohibiting visitation with prisoners will, for example, prevent members of gangs and other associates from seeking to participate in an enterprise associated with these things. That is obvious enough, and it would certainly do that. It would also ensure that all those related and flow-on vices that are associated with the distribution of contraband to prisoners will also be hindered.

We are all aware that our prisons serve the purpose to confine and deprive liberty from some of the most difficult and challenging members of our community. We confine people in correctional institutions because of that fact. The legislation sees the introduction of a series of practical measures to make sure that we take steps to increase safety, security and integrity in the prison system to the greatest extent that we practicably can. I look forward to the implementation of this legislation, along with so many other measures designed for practical, on-the-ground improvement. This is one such example. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:48): I rise to speak on the bill to amend the Correctional Services Act. The bill essentially makes provision for the undertaking of drug testing in respect of the workforce in our prisons and, importantly, to provide for the enforcement to restrict visitation by way of prohibition to those who may be associated with serious and organised crime. These are important initiatives. They are consistent with an election commitment of the government. I commend both speakers and, in particular, the minister for promptly bringing this matter before the house so that it can be advanced.

Recently, I had the privilege to be the acting Minister for Police and Correctional Services. During that time, I attended Fort Largs Police Academy for a graduation ceremony of the next class of correctional officers. It was a terrific day, and I complimented the South Australia Police for making available the facilities to enable the training of our next generation of correctional officers. They are a very diverse group and they are very enthusiastic.

As I happened to be the acting police minister on the same day, I thank myself for that purpose. It is a privilege to be given an insight into the extraordinary work that our minister has to do in ensuring that our prisons provide for both the safety and security of the community and also the rehabilitation of those who are incarcerated.

One aspect that is very important in ensuring the rehabilitation of those who are in prison is to ensure that the working relationship between the correctional officers and those who are incarcerated is operable. To that extent, I mean the significance of protecting correctional officers in respect of the prisoners themselves having sufficient activity to ensure that they are not a problem other than for the pure security of the prison.

Drugs in that environment can clearly impede the capacity of a correctional officer. They are illegal and of course, if transferred to a resident at the prison, can make it more difficult, not only by perpetuating any habit they may have but obviously in their conduct of the consequence. It raises to a volatile and potentially very dangerous level the relationship within the community in the detention or prison facility, in addition, of course, to being completely illegal.

It is an important initiative. I want to thank the correctional officers themselves and their union representatives, who worked towards stepping up to support this initiative and also followed in the footsteps of the South Australian police, again working with their association to say, 'We are ready to have this reform, to be part of a program that is going to make it safer for us and better for those who are incarcerated.'

In the course of the brief period as acting minister, I was able to meet with Mr Brown, the chief executive of Correctional Services in South Australia. Through other forums I meet with him and the minister for corrections, and he has continued an impressive leadership in this difficult area. He knows my view on two things. One is that obviously we as a government need to work with Corrections to try to restore the provision of services for newborns to women prisoners. I will continue to advocate for that in this house and, as we are now in government, to advance that. I know the minister is sympathetic to the restoration of that service, which has been cruelly cut out by the previous Labor administration, but we will work assiduously to remedy that.

My second area of concern is that we make sure that we provide rehabilitation and opportunity for those in custody to be skilled in the workforce. In that regard, we have national parks and public areas that need maintenance and servicing, including, for example, animal enclosures in Cleland Park, in my electorate, one of the biggest municipal parks in metropolitan Adelaide, which tourists and local people flock to.

We need to make sure pests in those parks, including olives and others that infest our public areas, are kept under control. Mr Brown knows very clearly my view, and I am pleased that he has warmly received a request to look at how we may better utilise and provide for skills advancement of those resident in prison so that they can visit these areas and make a constructive contribution, not only to the community but also to their own skilling and to their own pride in making a contribution in this area. He has been very receptive to that. I have, via the Minister for Environment, also met with the acting head of the environment department, Mr Schutz, and he, too, has indicated that he is willing to work with the new government to see how we might advance the opportunities for those prisoners.

I was very sad to read this week, initially in the media, reports of a prisoner who was allowed to escape a custodial sentence, partly based on the fact that a counselling service to help remediate his anger and unacceptable behaviour was not available until late 2019. It is just so inappropriate that we would incarcerate people and not be able to provide them with exactly the service they need to make them a decent citizen to go back into the community.

These are all areas that I know our minister is very mindful of in trying to advance for the benefit, not just the protection, of South Australians, and in making sure that when our custodial residents in our facilities do ultimately come back into the community after being released from a secure facility they are good, decent citizens who are able to constructively contribute back into the community when they come to live next door to you or me. I commend the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:56): I rise to speak to the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018. Obviously, I speak as the member for Hammond, and we have Mobilong Prison in my electorate, which has a long history spanning three decades. It was originally built for 160 inmates and now has room for over 460.

Occasionally, some people say to me, 'Do we have a prison in Murray Bridge?' It is a good thing that people can have that conversation, not knowing that just out the back, north-west of the main town, a prison is operating, offering lots of employment for local prison officers and also keeping our community safe.

I have made many visits to the prison—as a volunteer, I must stress. I have seen a lot of the Kairos ministry meetings held there and I have been there for several events. I must say that I have had some interesting conversations with some of the inmates. The thing we need to do is make sure that people are rehabilitated appropriately in our prisons and, obviously, Mobilong is part of that process.

This bill is another Marshall Liberal government promise that we are delivering on, another election commitment to introduce legislation in this place within the first 100 days. This bill demonstrates the government's zero tolerance for drugs in prisons by seeking to stop drugs entering prisons from the outset by limiting the power and control of not only members of outlaw motorcycle gangs but also their associates.

Over time, traditionally prisons have been a location for members of gangs to recruit new members. These same groups may also attempt to continue their criminal activities and associations whilst in custody. It is now necessary that we obstruct the influence of organised crime groups such as outlaw motorcycle gangs. Not only will prohibiting visitation with prisoners stop gang members from seeking to profit from the introduction and distribution of contraband to prisoners but it will also hinder their criminal interests and enterprises through witness manipulation and intimidation.

Prisons by their nature confine the most complex, challenging and dangerous members of our community, and this bill seeks to increase the safety, security and integrity of the prison system. As I indicated, this is vitally important in my area, around Murray Bridge. The bill will enable the Department for Correctional Services to work closely with South Australia Police to limit the power and control of organised crime groups and sever links between prisoners and their associates.

The bill also introduces drug and alcohol testing for Correctional Services staff, including when there is a suspicion they are under the influence of drugs, when they are an applicant for certain positions in Correctional Services and also on a random basis. The bill applies to all staff and employees of the Department for Correctional Services and G4S officers working at Mount Gambier Prison. It also includes contractors working at a correctional facility—for example, as has recently happened at Mobilong with the expansion, people undertaking maintenance and/or building works at a prison. Similar to testing undertaken at mine sites, if a contractor attending a prison site to undertake works at the prison is requested to undergo a drug and alcohol test, they can refuse but then they must leave the site at once.

This government does not want anyone on our prison sites who may be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. This is a good thing to help make our community safe, especially those of us who have prisons in our community, such as the member for Flinders and the member for Stuart (Port Lincoln and Port Augusta), the member for Mount Gambier (Mount Gambier), me as the member for Hammond and those prisons in urban seats throughout Adelaide. We need to show the community that we are keeping them safe whilst maintaining law and order in the prisons themselves. I think this is excellent legislation and I commend the bill.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:02): I would like to thank all the members who made a contribution today: the member for Elizabeth, the member for Heysen, the Deputy Premier and the member for Hammond. They are all passionate people who are very focused on our prisons, and I commend them for it. We are making sure that we have the best prison system not only in the nation but also in the world. That is what we want to be shooting for here.

As many members would be aware, the act provides for the establishment and management of correctional institutions and regulates how prisoners are to be treated. This is one of the Marshall Liberal team's 100-day commitments, and I am very pleased to be delivering on this here today. The government's bill amends the act to deliver on the election commitment to stamp out drugs in prisons. The bill achieves this through two changes that modify how prisons operate and who can enter our state's prisons.

Firstly, the bill provides the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services with the power to prevent a member of a criminal organisation, or a person who associates or has associated with a member of a criminal organisation, from visiting a prisoner in prison. This power is provided to the chief executive to stop the influence of organised crime and their associates in our prisons. Secondly, the bill provides the power to test an officer or employee of the department or any other person who enters a correctional institution for drugs or alcohol. This procedure, and particulars of that testing regime, will be provided for in the regulations which will be prepared in due course.

I note that the shadow minister did point out a few amendments. Whilst we agree with some of them in principle, we will deal with those when we reopen this bill at a date down the track and look forward to working with the opposition to make our prisons as safe as possible. I note that this bill is part of the Marshall Liberal team's 100-day plan, focused on the two points I have already mentioned, namely, to keep outlaw motorcycle gangs and their associates out of prisons and to perform drug tests on people who enter prisons, in order to keep drugs out of prisons. We know that drugs in prisons are a scourge, and we want to do everything in our power to remove them. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (12:05): By leave, I move my contingent notice of motion in an amended form so that it reads:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that it have power to consider amendments relating to prisoners' mail.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 25

Majority 4

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: Minister, could I ask you to go through what consultation you went through regarding this new amendment bill?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, of course. The PSA were consulted. We spoke with Nev Kitchin, who is in charge at the PSA. We probably need to note that there were elements of this bill in the last term of government, but the government did not manage to get it progressed, so there was a lot of consultation done back then as well. Without speaking for my opposite number, there are a lot of elements of this that we fundamentally agree with. The elements that came out of that—and I take from the member for Elizabeth's speech as well that he agrees with the principle of what we are doing here and the bill itself. I note that a few amendments were put forward by the member that were just voted down. Again, I said in my final speech that—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think it was the motion. We voted down the motion, so it was all of them.

The CHAIR: Get back on track, minister, please. Answer the question. Do not be caught up in the interjections.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I was just trying to clarify the point. The point is that there were amendments and we did vote them down, but I did say that in principle there were some that I do agree with. I am happy to work with the member for Elizabeth when we reopen this bill, and it is my intention to do so, to make some more changes to the Correctional Services Act because there are some more things that need to happen. These amendments we are making here today, that we are putting through, were the priorities that the Marshall Liberal government took to the election.

We made it very clear when we went to the election that we wanted to deliver on those, first and foremost, to the people of South Australia to show that we will do what we say we will do. Those two key points obviously were to keep outlaw motorcycle gangs and their associates out of prisons, to prevent drugs coming into prisons, because we know they are a source, and also to drug test people who come into prisons. The department consulted very heavily and I personally have spoken to the PSA and obviously other key stakeholders in this bill.

Mr ODENWALDER: Were SAPOL consulted?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I know when I first came to government that we ran through all the commitments we made at the election. I will have to go back and get 100 per cent clarification, but I am very confident that all of these were discussed. At what depth, I cannot tell the member, to be honest, because I know that I personally had that discussion with SAPOL. They were consulted very heavily in the previous bill, so they are very much in agreeance. Fundamentally, yes, we had conversations with SAPOL about this bill. They were supportive of the bill and are very happy to see it through.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 4, after line 18—Insert:

(1) Section 34(4)(d)—delete 'if any part of the imprisonment for which the prisoner was sentenced is in relation to a child sexual offence' and substitute:

if the prisoner has ever been found guilty of a child sexual offence

I thank the shadow minister, the member for Elizabeth, for his indulgence on this. We have also had conversations offline about this. This is very much about semantics. This is very similar to the amendment he wanted to move, which we fundamentally supported. There is a slight change in the wording. As I said, I did have a chat to the member about this. The use of the words 'convicted of' we thought were not strong enough. I will quote what we are trying to do here for the Hansard:

…'if any part of the imprisonment for which the prisoner was sentenced is in relation to a child sexual offence'…

We want to substitute the word 'convicted' of child sexual offence with 'guilty' of child sexual offence. I think the member was in agreeance on this one. If someone is 'found guilty of' and not 'convicted', they would still be caught under this amendment. We think it is a very slight alteration to what the member opposite was putting forward, and we move that the amendment be accepted.

The CHAIR: The term you are proposing in that amendment is 'found guilty'?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, 'found guilty of'.

The CHAIR: Can the member for Elizabeth indicate whether you would be agreeable to that?

Mr ODENWALDER: I take the minister's word for the subtle difference in meaning of the terms. I accept the amendment. I am glad that I prompted him to make this important change.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clauses 7A and 7B.

Mr ODENWALDER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Odenwalder–1]—

Page 4, after line 23—Insert:

7A—Amendment of section 51—Offences by persons other than prisoners

Section 51—after subsection (1) insert:

(2) A person who, without the permission of the CE or without lawful excuse, has possession of a controlled drug (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act 1984) in a correctional institution buffer zone is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(3) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare an area surrounding the boundary of a correctional institution to be the correctional institution buffer zone for the correctional institution.

(4) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, revoke or vary a declaration under subsection (3).

(5) In this section—

correctional institution buffer zone means an area declared by the Minister under subsection (3) to be a correctional institution buffer zone.

7B—Amendment of section 66—Automatic release on parole for certain prisoners

Section 66(2)—after paragraph (ab) insert:

(aba) a prisoner if any part of the imprisonment for which the prisoner was sentenced is in respect of a serious drug offence (within the meaning of Part 3 Division 4 of the Sentencing Act 2017); or

As the minister is aware, in the 2017 iteration of the bill there was a clause that created a buffer zone around prisons, which has the effect of amplifying certain drug offences, possession and trafficking offences, which is essentially a tool to help the police in policing around prisons and preventing contraband from entering prisons. It could also feed into other provisions of the 2017 bill, provisions around drones and other methods of getting drugs into prisons other than by human carrier. I think this is a sensible change to establish buffer zones. It is a change we can make today. It would not impede the passage of the bill one moment longer.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for the question. I have had a look at this. Whilst in principle I agree with what he is trying to do, I am still waiting on a bit of information to come back to see what the history is of these drones being caught in this space and what the actual best outcome might be for this. I can understand some of the points in principle. One thing I have been exploring is around the term 'or has possession of in', which is included to prevent a person who introduces an item passing to another person who has possession but did not introduce. So a little bit of a technicality, but who has possession of the substance when it is actually on the drone or in the air? Is it the person who is actually delivering or the person receiving it?

There were a few questions around this that I was looking to explore. Not the drones—this is between two people. I apologise. I am skipping forward to the wrong spot. The problem with this is the actual permission and I am seeking some clarification on this. Again, I say to the shadow minister that I am very happy to support in principle. We will not support the motion as it stands, but I am happy to discuss with the member between the houses and maybe look to make some more appropriate amendments. Given the boundary around the correctional institution and the buffer zone that he is talking about, we want more clarification on that point, if that is possible.

Mr ODENWALDER: I think what the minister is indicating is that he does not accept the amendment, but I am not entirely clear why. Sorry, I do not follow your argument. All this does is change the Controlled Substances Act to establish a zone around a prison where certain offences would become amplified, or whatever the legal term is, or the penalties would be expanded. I am happy to accept that you do not accept the amendment, but if you can offer an explanation as to why, I would like to understand why.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This amendment decreases the maximum penalty from 10 years, proposed in the 2017 bill, to five years. The 2017 amendment included an additional clause that provided for penalties for possession of prohibited items, that is, in particular, mobile phones, but also any other prohibited items. So the introduction of prison buffer zones that aim to prevent the introduction of contraband into prisons currently, and the point where a person becomes guilty of an offence, is when the contraband is already inside the prison.

Just clarifying how someone is guilty of having contraband when it is outside the prison, at what point does it actually end up inside the prison? We just want to get a little bit of clarification. I am happy to work with the member on this, but we will not support this amendment as it stands, but I am happy to work with him to finalise that finer detail between the houses and potentially come back and make a slightly better worded amendment to cover that position.

The committee divided on the new clauses:

Ayes 20

Noes 26

Majority 6

New clauses thus negatived.

Clause 8.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can the minister clarify that the testing scheme, as it relates to employees of the department, is the same scheme as that adopted by SAPOL?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for his question on this important part of the legislation. It will be very similar to SAPOL's approach as far as staff testing is concerned. The provisions will fundamentally mirror what SAPOL does, so the short answer is yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: It also relates to visitors to the prison. I think I understand what that means, but could the minister outline the parameters of that definition? Who is subject to the testing regime when they are visiting prisons?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I appreciate the question. As we have said, it will be done in a similar manner to SAPOL. We do not want anyone in our prisons under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as the member will understand. The person may be required to submit to a drug and alcohol test, with their consent. If they do not consent the CE has the right to refuse entry to that person.

This section ensures that other people who attend correctional institutions—such as staff employed by other government departments, maybe the health service or any persons working at a correctional facility, be it a tradesperson undertaking maintenance or building work or doing any works on the prison site, contractors who might undertake jobs such as delivering produce or materials—do not attend correctional institutions under the influence. The CE has the right to refuse entry. I am led to believe it will be put in the regulations as to how that procedure will work, but fundamentally the CE of corrections will have coverage of that.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand the CE will have control of this, but in practical terms who will be subject to this regime and who will make that decision on the ground?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To cover it—and if I miss anything I will get some pointers from the department—as I said, the CE can make a determination on anyone who comes through the prison. It is determined by the CE. Regulations will be put in place to administer that, as I said. So, if tradespeople come in, if someone is doing deliveries, or a worker from outside is coming through, if they are required to take a test, the CE can determine that and it will happen that way.

Fundamentally, it will be on suspicion, I suppose. If you stagger in, or if there is reason to believe that the person has an association with someone who has a history of drugs, intelligence will be used to make a determination and therefore that person might be picked out to take a test. There will probably be random tests as well. I would imagine the CE will have the discretion to do a random test.

You have to remember that the key focus is to keep drugs out of prison, so if there is information or a suspicion that someone might be doing that then they can be asked to take a test. They can decline and they will be asked to leave. What we want to do is get drugs out of prison, so if there is some intelligence that there is an association, or there is a concern that drugs might be brought into the prison, then that person will be asked to take a test.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can I continue?

The CHAIR: I will allow one more question.

Mr ODENWALDER: You can restrict me to three—

The CHAIR: We have had three questions, member for Elizabeth.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (9 and 10) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank the member for Elizabeth for his indulgence and support and look forward to continuing to work with him. My apologies for clause 7. There were two parts to that and I think we discussed two parts in one, but I am happy to continue to work with the member for Elizabeth on improving Corrections here in South Australia.

Bill read a third time and passed.