Extended Supervision Laws

Ms LUETHEN (King) (14:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is warned.

Ms LUETHEN: My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General provide an update to the house on how our extended supervision laws are operating and what work has been done to make our community safer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Mr Brown: Have you asked the Chief Justice?

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is warned. Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and I appreciate the question from the member because it gives me an opportunity to confirm, as I said yesterday, that I have been speaking to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other relevant agencies, such as the Parole Board, the Department for Correctional Services and my fellow minister, of course, about the potential reform regarding high-risk offenders and their supervision once they complete their sentence.

These are people, I remind the house, who have done their time, completed their sentence, had their punishment and they are let out. Around the country a few years ago, including South Australia under the previous Labor government, legislation was introduced and passed to try to deal with the safety of the community in a circumstance where, first, someone had completed their sentence but was determined by definition as a high-risk offender and, secondly, they would continue to be an appreciable risk to the safety of South Australians, and we supported that from opposition.

Although South Australia's legislation was comprehensively more extensive, and therefore we have had quite a number of cases come before the courts, there had been a concern raised by the Chief Justice—I think late last year on the first occasion—when he raised the question about whether courts should remain the decision-making body. In other words, he said, 'This is not a jurisdictional issue for us. We determine the facts, we convict, we sentence. It is not our job, which is an administrative matter, to deal with those offenders in those circumstances.'

He also raised the question of whether we should deal with offenders who were determined by his court to be unwilling or incapable of controlling their sexual instincts. These are the Schusters, the Humphrys. We have heard of these cases—and I refer to public cases, of course—where the Supreme Court has been asked to deal with their release on licence as part of that regime.

I think it is fair to say that I expressed the view to the Chief Justice at the time that the question of the latter group was one for which supreme courts around the country have responsibility—they have for decades—and that that should continue. We have continued to negotiate on these matters. He advised me by letter a few months ago that he agreed, actually, in relation to those matters, and that that was an area of jurisdictional responsibility—those very difficult cases where the indeterminate continued incarceration of those persons would remain, then they should be a matter that the Supreme Court kept.

We have made the commitment to him, and we are progressing the question of how we deal with high-risk offenders, and that work will continue.