CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into the Department for Correctional Services and report upon—

(a) whether sufficient resources exist for the safe, effective and efficient operation of South Australia's prison system;

(b) claims of bullying and harassment within the department;

(c) claims that correct departmental practices and procedures are regularly ignored by management;

(d) claims of drug use and sales within the prison system;

(e) claims of poor occupational health and safety management in prisons; and

(f) any other relevant matter.

2. That standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 24 November 2010.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (18:02): As a former minister for correctional services, I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the government. Whilst the Hon. Terry Stephens outlined in graphic detail concerns that were brought to his attention by a range of unnamed correctional officers, it is disturbing that the details presented to us have not (to the best of my knowledge) been brought to the attention of the Minister for Correctional Services or, indeed, the responsible officers within the Department for Correctional Services.

We are now being requested to yet again approve the establishment of a select committee which will then take evidence in relation to whatever it might be that led to these concerns, concerns that could have, and should have, been dealt with in appropriate forums already in place. Accepted practices in this chamber have been completely thrown out so as to get a bit more publicity. Well, how predictable.

As we would all be aware, correctional services is one of the most difficult areas of public administration and, over the years, has attracted, often for all the wrong reasons, negative publicity. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that the department, through its officials, has never avoided proper scrutiny, has proactively dealt with matters of complaint and has significantly changed, enhanced and strengthened the necessary governance arrangements to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness for both employees within the department and, indeed, prisoners and offenders who are either incarcerated or supervised through Community Corrections.

I will just focus on a number of more recent developments. I am advised that, for the third year in a row, the Department for Correctional Services has successfully reduced its future WorkCover liability through a very proactive and intensive focus on occupational health and safety. This is an impressive manifestation of an organisation that continuously aims to improve the working conditions for its employees, and these subjective facts are further impressive given the growing but also ageing workforce. Reducing the number of workplace injuries, particularly psychological injuries, is, in my opinion, strongly indicative of organisational health rather than—as the honourable member put it—'prison officers' welfare and safety not being considered at all.'

The government is aware, through advice received from the Chief Executive of DCS, of a group of staff within the Department for Correctional Services who have consistently complained about their perception of being wrongly treated. The management of these matters is well documented and I am confident that, if a select committee is called for, evidence will support the strength and robustness of the formal departmental complaints management system, the rigour with which formal complaints are being investigated and followed up, and the absolute openness to appropriate scrutiny in relation to the administrative processes.

A further current initiative is the rolling out of ethical standards and anti-bullying training for all staff within the department. This concerted and intensive training effort is put in place to again inform and educate staff on appropriate ethical behaviour directly aimed at reducing incidents of bullying or harassment through proper education. Senior staff from the department's human resources branch participate in every session and are available to address any issue staff have after the session. This is an example of a proactive approach to addressing inappropriate workplace behaviour.

The government acknowledges that, at times, departmental employees, rightly or wrongly, feel they have been inappropriately treated. It is also not disputed that cases of workplace bullying and harassment can occur and it is a reasonable expectation from employees that their managers properly deal with such matters. If staff follow the proper and well-established complaints processes, it is an entirely reasonable expectation that inappropriate behaviour from any employee, regardless of their role within the department, is dealt with.

Let me be very clear. This government does not tolerate inappropriate workplace behaviour, and let me assure members opposite that any such behaviour that is properly reported will be followed up. Therefore, I encourage any correctional services employee who has a complaint to bring this to the attention of the authorities in the proper manner so that matters can be addressed and inappropriate workplace behaviour eliminated. This does not require another select committee. This is not a matter for political resolution: it is an important matter to be addressed through proper human resource processes.

I now want to turn to other matters raised by the honourable member. He stated that the select committee should investigate if rehabilitation is effective in our prison system. I draw to the attention of honourable members that South Australia continues to have the lowest rate in the nation of released prisoners returning to prison. The ultimate measure of success for a correctional system, surely, has to be the rate of reoffending.

Whilst any reoffending is concerning, the reality for South Australia is that we are outperforming every other state and territory. For the third year in a row, South Australia has the lowest return-to-prison rate of any jurisdiction. For 2009-10, 30.2 per cent of all released prisoners returned to prison within two years of discharge. This figure is below that of any other jurisdiction and less than the national average of 37.6 per cent. A further impressive outcome is the high participation rate (almost twice the national average) of prisoners in education.

These figures are both reflected in the Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services for 2011. It is a glowing report card of the state's prison system, and I suggest members opposite actually read it. Correctional systems should always strive to improve efforts made in assisting prisoners with rehabilitation, and the Department for Correctional Services, of course, is no exception.

Rehabilitation programs are longstanding, as are drug treatment programs. As has been widely reported in the media, some of the more recent initiatives undertaken by DCS include the implementation of the Making Changes program—a cutting edge therapeutic intervention program for prisoners and offenders who may be at medium to high risk of reoffending.

The department is currently evaluating the success of the Sierra program, a specific intervention program for high risk young offenders at Port Augusta Prison. These types of initiatives contribute to an improved and enhanced system, and I can assure all honourable members that no effort is spared to continue further improvements in the future. So, rather than referring to perceptions and hearsay, I think it is an unbeatable fact that South Australia is outperforming our counterparts in important areas of recidivism and prisoner education. The honourable member also referred to allegations regarding the reaction by departmental staff to prisoners who are found to have consumed illicit drugs. This matter has previously been brought—no doubt by the same source that informed the member opposite—to the attention of the Department for Correctional Services.

I am advised that a thorough investigation was conducted into the allegations. This investigation included a detailed review of all information contained on departmental records that relates to prisoner drug testing and subsequent actions where a positive drug test was returned. The investigation did not—and I stress 'not'—identify any consistent practice; and, in the absence of further evidence, it can only be concluded that these assertions are not based on objective facts. I would like to urge members to consider carefully the need for this select committee. There are important matters—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: —you should listen, though, when I tell you—to be managed within the Department for Correctional Services. There is every opportunity for departmental staff and any other concerned persons—including members of parliament, I should say—to bring matters of concern to the attention of the Minister for Correctional Services or the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services. It is an appropriate and fair expectation that these matters are expeditiously dealt with, which I certainly can assure this chamber and this parliament will and has happened. For all those reasons, the government will not support the establishment of another proposed select committee.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (18:11): Given the time, I will not be long. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I think that I am fulfilling my duty as a member of parliament to bring forward the concerns of members of the public who feel they have been bullied and victimised and to give them an opportunity to have their say. I would urge all members to support my motion, and I look forward, hopefully, to its passing.

Motion carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons R.L. Brokenshire, P. Holloway, T.J. Stephens, S.G. Wade and Carmel Zollo; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 27 July 2011.