CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 November 2011.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:12): I thank members for their patience. I sought leave to conclude my comments on the last Tuesday of sitting, so I will pick up where I left off. I would like turn my attention now to the proposed reforms of parole arrangements for inmates serving life sentences, which have been necessitated by this government's capricious, inconsistent, populist and arbitrary use of the Governor's power to overrule the recommendation of the Parole Board to grant parole to life sentence inmates, whom I will refer to as 'lifers'.

Presently, prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment apply for parole as per other prisoners. However, unlike other inmates who simply must satisfy the Parole Board, for lifers the ultimate decision to grant parole is at the discretion of the Governor in Council.

Whilst other state jurisdictions have had such powers, all have removed them from their statutes when establishing independent parole boards. Presumably, they recognised that, to continue with such power, it undermined their parole board's independence, confidence of the citizens in their parole board system and that most fundamental principle of the separation of powers.

South Australia is the only Australian jurisdiction that has retained the executive rights to veto a parole application. However, prior to 2002, no South Australian government had exercised power to deny parole to an inmate. Since the Rann Labor government and the rise of the law and order politics, it is heralded. However, the Parole Board reported to me that less than 50 per cent of applications are actually granted by Executive Council.

My office requested further details of Executive Council's refusal of parole applications, and, while the details are limited due to not disclosing identifying detail, I was informed that since April 2002 the Governor has been directed by the executive to refuse parole on 21 occasions whilst granting parole to lifers on just 13 locations. It should be noted, however, that the 21 refusals related to only nine inmates.

However, these nine inmates represent only the tip of the iceberg due to what is known as the catch 22, that is, the Department for Correctional Services being reluctant to enable prisoners to participate in prerelease resocialisation activities—work, family, leave, etc.—despite the Parole Board being inclined to recommend parole due to it being foreseeable that the executive will ultimately deny parole.

Understandably, the department has been reluctant to release inmates into the community as part of resocialisation in preparation for parole when it was foreseeable that the executive would announce that the inmate is a risk to the public and not to be released. I met with Mr Peter Severin, Chief Executive of Corrections, and he expressed to me that he has concerns about this catch 22 situation as well and, also, was under the impression, or gave us the impression, that this issue would have been dealt with in this bill, and obviously it has not.

His concerns when we met with him were that there are a number of people who have overstayed their time in prison between six to eight years who want to know when they can be moved to prerelease and resocialisation programs. Also, that there is a level of tension that is growing amongst people who are well and truly over their sentence time because they do not see any end to their stay.

I think he was also frustrated with the fact that they basically are not able to follow through on directions of the Parole Board to move people into prerelease. They are able but they do not because they second-guess that the Executive will actually refuse parole. So, they have people stuck midstream. I know that it is not a popular issue and that people do not really have very much sympathy for people who are serving life in prison, but I would see that as more of a criticism of our system.

If we are successfully rehabilitating people and getting them to take responsibility and the Parole Board is satisfied that they meet the criteria for parole, it is a cruel joke really to have them work towards that for many years in prison—and some of them do actually strive to improve themselves and get a handle on what life was before and make inroads into that—only to find that, at the end of the journey, they are going to be locked up indefinitely.

I am aware of at least half a dozen inmates who have been unable to progress their parole applications due to the catch 22, an example being Mr Derek Bromley, whose case has been raised in this place previously by myself and the Hon. Dennis Hood. Put simply, despite numerous recommendations by the Parole Board in their reasons for refusal to release in accordance with section 67(9) that Mr Bromley undertake resocialisation—I think the catch 22 that people do not get is that if they do not do the resocialisation they are then not eligible for parole; so the Parole Board can recommend it, corrections then says, 'No, because we're sure that the executive isn't going to approve it,' so they are not moved into prerelease or resocialisation and their parole application falls over, which is just a never-ending circle for them—Mr Bromley is yet to be given the opportunity due to the department foreseeing his parole being vetoed by the executive.

This is presumed, for while the department is more than willing to talk of the catch 22 generally, it declines to demonstrate its application to individual inmates. Utilising this power to veto parole has made the release of lifers highly politicised, with the government using the denial of parole to some inmates to bolster its law and order credentials.

As an example I quote a media release by the then attorney-general, the member for Croydon, entitled, 'Libs back lawyers and shun victims', dated 13 January 2010. I quote:

If Isobel Redmond's Liberal Party had its way, convicted murderers and such as Stephen Wayne McBride, James Early, David Andrew Millar, Steve Eger, Peter Michael Webb, Anthony James Brady and David James Watson would be back in society, Mr Atkinson said.

I note the Peter Michael Webb one. The Attorney-General clearly made an error when referring to Michael Peter Webb, not Peter Michael Webb, an error subsequently repeated by the former police minister and others. Members may recognise the name Michael Webb from the recent Today Tonight story by producer Graham Archer, which revealed that Mr Webb's co-accused, Ms Veronica Hay, whom in sentencing the trial judge, Judge Debelle, described as equally culpable of the vicious murder in 1991, had been released following the expiration of her nonparole period in December 2005, while Mr Webb remains incarcerated some six years later.

Despite a minor variation for time served, both Mr Webb and Ms Hay received equal sentences and, hence, became eligible for parole in the same period. Both applied to the Parole Board and both were recommended for parole to the executive. Upon receiving their applications, the prisoners, who were equal in every way, including in their prison conduct, ceased to be equal, with Ms Hay granted parole while Mr Webb was denied. On being informed by Mr Webb of his continued incarceration, Judge Debelle took the unusual action of writing to the Parole Board and, upon learning that responsibility lay with the Executive Council, then writing to the then minister for correctional services, the Hon. Carmel Zollo MLC.

While that letter, which was provided to me by Mr Webb, has been read out in another place by the member for Bragg (without knowledge, I might add), for the benefit of members in this place I will quote it in full:

Dear minister,

I was the trial judge in R v Webb & Hay. That is why I probably received the attached letter from Mr Webb. Mr Webb and Ms Hay were jointly charged with the murder of Mr L.E. Patrick at Mt Gambier in 1991. Both pleaded not guilty. Both were convicted of the crime of murder after trial by jury. Both were equally culpable. Ms Hay was sentenced to a non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment. Mr Webb was sentenced to a non-parole period of 19 years and nine months. The difference of three months resulted from the fact that Mr Webb had already been in custody for a longer period of time than Ms Hay.

As you can see from his letter, Mr Webb is aggrieved by the fact that his co-accused, Ms Hay, has been released on parole but he has not. The circumstances of this murder do not provide any basis for discriminating between the culpability of Mr Webb and his co-accused. I have asked the Parole Board whether there was any reason for the discrimination between Mr Webb and Ms Hay. Ms Nelson QC, the Presiding Member of the Parole Board, has informed me by letter dated 9 March 2006 that the board had recommended the release of Mr Webb on parole, but Executive Council had not accepted its recommendation.

In a letter Ms Nelson describes the situation as 'completely unfair'. I enclose a copy of her letter. I respectfully suggest that the situation is not only unfair but is also unjust. I repeat that the circumstances of this crime provide no basis for discriminating between the culpability of Mr Webb and Ms Hay. It certainly does not justify releasing Ms Hay before Mr Webb. The fact that Ms Hay was ordered to serve a slightly longer term than Mr Webb only serves to emphasise the unjustness to Mr Webb.

I ask that you consider the matter urgently and recommend to Executive Council that it revoke its decision and release Mr Webb at the earliest possible date. If that is not possible, I ask that you recommend that the Executive Council release Mr Webb on parole should he apply for release on or after 31 May 2006.

Yours faithfully, Justice Debelle.

That letter was dated 28 March 2006, and to my knowledge Justice Debelle did not even receive a reply. Despite the intervention of the trial judge, Mr Webb's subsequent parole application was again rejected by the executive, as it has been each time he has since applied.

Members may recall from the Today Tonight story that there are suggestions that a former member of this place, who led the relevant portfolios of correctional services and Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation, showed a particular interest in Ms Hay's parole application and, on numerous occasions, contacted the Parole Board to inquire and reportedly expedite its progress. I was informed of this by the highest authority and I know it to be true.

I have been unable to establish the reason for the former member's interest in the case. However, I suspect that, as Ms Hay is Indigenous and was and continues to be well known in that community, particularly in the South-East, and I believe had familial connections to prominent Indigenous organisations, may explain his actions. Further, exactly what influence a former member exerted when the Executive Council considered Ms Hay's parole application we will never know. However, it has been said as to me that the results speak for themselves. This example only serves to demonstrate why such decisions should not be the domain of less than impartial politicians who will gladly play with a man's life for political mileage.

Whilst I explored several options to bring greater accountability and transparency to the Executive Council's role—including drafting amendments to require the Governor to publish reasons for refusing parole, similar to the Parole Board—I ultimately concluded that rather than attempt to bring accountability to a discretionary and confidential decision the only option to address the issue I have raised is the removal of the executive's veto. Other than for the purpose of politics, there is simply no justification for the executive to have such a power.

As I mentioned, every other state was mature enough to recognise that such determinations were rightly the responsibility of their independent parole boards. It is time we did the same. This part of the legislation is over 100 years old. As I said, it was there before a parole board was established and we are the only state that has held onto it, and we have to ask ourselves why. Accordingly, I indicate to the council that I will be moving amendments to this effect.

In an attempt to counterbalance the removal of the executive's role and to ensure the public interest is served when considering parole applications, my amendments will create a new right for the state to appeal a decision of the Parole Board to release an inmate serving a sentence of life imprisonment. This gets back to the Hon. Mike Rann's rant and rave in the other place, when this issue was raised, about people like von Einem, that we would all be very happy for him, if we supported this, to be out walking the streets because he is two years or whatever over his sentence, as well.

The government or the executive will still have the right to appeal that. It is just that it will not be done quite so obviously and quite so often if there has to be some preparation involved and some sort of explanation as to why they are vetoing a decision of the Parole Board. This will be a merit review and, unlike a judicial review, will re-examine the parole application afresh and ensure that the competing considerations are given their proportionate weight. Such an appeal will also serve to ensure that the Parole Board is provided guidance on its determinations rather than its decisions simply being vetoed with no explanation.

Whilst a responsible and mature government would recognise that responsibility for the current catch 22 lay with the executive's power to deny parole and, hence, the value of my amendment, instead the bill attempts to address the catch 22 by enabling prisoners to undertake resocialisation following parole being granted by both the Parole Board and the Governor. It is a bit back to front; the cart before the horse.

Specifically, the bill at clause 42 amends section 68(1)(b) of the Correctional Services Act 1982 to enable the Parole Board to recommend and the Governor to approve that an inmate serving a term of life imprisonment reside for a period of up to one year at specified premises and undertake at specified places such activities and programs to assist in the reintegration of the prisoner into the community, as well as be monitored by the use of an electronic device.

The specified premises could, according to the bill, be either a probation/parole hostel or a prison. However, due to the negative backlash by the community to the notion of parole hostels when the idea was first floated publicly, this option is unlikely to eventuate. Instead, lifers will serve part of their parole period in the prerelease centre at Yatala. This, in itself, will create significant problems given the duration of the lifer's likely stay at the prerelease centre and the relatively few beds available which must service the entire prison population. I ask the minister whether there is an intention to expand the number of beds available at the prerelease centre or whether the government's attempt to fix a problem of its own making create yet more problems across the system.

The Law Society, in its submission to the bill, has opposed these proposed changes arguing that detention whilst on parole serves as an extension of the inmate's prison sentence, something only a court should be able to do. However, given my understanding of the problems created by the exercise of the Governor's discretion to deny parole to lifers, I am of the view that until the time that this power is relegated to the history books such amendments, whilst somewhat makeshift, are indeed necessary.

The Law Society's position can be contrasted with the position of other stakeholders, such as Chris Charles, senior counsel for the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, who wrote in a submission to the government's discussion paper, which preceded the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011, as follows:

The provisions of pre-release and re-socialisation activities from pre-release centres seem appropriate, subject to the major concern that life prisoners who have not been granted parole with the condition of re-socialisation because of the capricious refusal to give parole at all, will simply be subject to continued imprisonment.

I would add to this that, while this may assist some inmates about whom the Parole Board or, in lesser cases, the executive, has genuine concerns to gain parole, the proposed changes will do nothing to assist inmates from whom the government can gain political mileage from their incarceration.

As a further measure of addressing the catch 22, it has been suggested by Chris Charles and others, and supported by the head of the Parole Board, Ms Frances Nelson QC, that recommendations of the Parole Board should be binding on the department. Numerous constituents who have had their parole applications denied, received a recommendation that they participate in resocialisation and offender programs, yet the department has been unwilling to offer these services because it is foreseen that the executive will ultimately deny the inmate parole.

I again point members to the example of Mr Bromley. At present, the department, in second guessing the executive, is essentially ignoring the expressed recommendations of the Parole Board. While the department's position is understandable, such an amendment would make clear that the department's role is to give effect to recommendations of the Parole Board and not crystal ball the executive. For this reason, I will be moving an amendment to insert a new subsection 61(11) into the bill.

In conjunction with the proposed reform in the bill, the Department for Correctional Services is in the process of introduction a modified pre-release program for inmates serving a term of life imprisonment to undertake prior to parole being granted. This modified program will reflect the fact that community release (that is, day release, work release and family release) will occur following parole being granted while the inmate resides at the prerelease centre for up to a year.

Given the uncertainty that exists not just in the community but seemingly in the department and in the Parole Board, I ask that the minister, in either summing up or at clause 1, to explain in detail exactly how this modified prerelease will operate, that is, how it will be instigated and how it will interrelate to the proposed reforms in the bill. I indicate to the minister that my support for the bill is contingent upon this answer because, regardless of my amendments, if I am not convinced that the bill addresses the catch 22, I will not be supporting it. With that said, I look forward to the minister's answers and the committee stage.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (12:34): I rise to speak to the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which has two distinct parts affecting prison management and the parole system. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Stephen Wade, who has already spoken on this bill on behalf of the Liberal Party as the shadow attorney-general. I thank him for his work and analysis of the bill. His expertise in combing through the legal minutiae is greatly appreciated, certainly on this side of house.

I will keep my contribution reasonably brief as I do not need to repeat what has been said previously. However, as the shadow minister for correctional services, I want to comment on the changes to the prison system as a result of this bill. While the changes may seem straightforward and largely uncontroversial, there are a few aspects of the bill that I would like to highlight. Many of the changes relate to the transfer of powers from prison managers to the chief executive of the Department for Correctional Services. This seems appropriate to provide consistency across the jurisdiction. The strengthening of the provisions for visitors is something that I also welcome. After the member for Bragg's amendment in the other place, this aims to protect minors under the age of 18 from child sex offenders. It is a shame that the government did not accept the following amendment to protect victims of domestic violence.

The legislating of the issue of weapons to correctional services officers and the use of correctional services dogs is supported, with a few concerns. My question to the government is: what will these weapons consist of? Are we talking about tasers and batons or shotguns? Is it best to leave this open-ended? The department already has issues with deaths in custody. I do not believe this is the best way to necessarily improve the situation. The use of dogs in prisons for drug detection should be put to much broader use in all correctional facilities in this state, particularly those of medium to high security.

I would like to note the section of the bill dealing with drug testing of prisoners. The quicker we can reduce the level of drug use and dependence in the prison system the better. The current level of one in five prisoners is completely unacceptable and the government should be doing all it can to reduce this figure. My office has been contacted by a number of concerned ex-prisoners who have made an effort to wean themselves off of illegal substances while in prison, only to be abandoned when released on parole. How has this been allowed to happen? Many of these parolees then turn back to crime to feed their addictions and perpetuate the recidivist cycle of drugs and crime.

I want to comment on one aspect of the parole side of this bill. The government intends to send parolees who breach their conditions back to gaol for the remainder of their sentence. While this seems appropriate for serious breaches, as parole is a privilege, where is the government going to send them? The capacity of our prison system is already at its maximum and is only going to get worse, given the stats on incarceration. The government is using bandaid measures such as shipping containers to stitch a patch over this particular problem.

As previously mentioned, the opposition is in support of the majority of this bill and our concerns will be addressed via amendments and questions during the committee stage.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (12:37): By way of concluding remarks, I thank all members for their second reading contributions to this debate. The bill seeks to improve community safety by increasing the security of our prisons, strengthening parole conditions in line with community expectations and ensuring that correctional services in South Australia are administered in the most modern, flexible and accountable manner.

I thank members for their substantial support for most of the bill and I am proud that the government has worked with other members to accept some appropriate amendments that have been proposed. Of particular note is the inclusion in the bill of provisions to quarantine prisoner compensation funds awarded to allow victims to make a claim on those moneys in the first instance. This is a very real example of government law-making action, where an opposition member worked with the government to move good amendments to the bill that could ultimately be accepted.

In the debate, the opposition raised some issues with the strengthening of parole positions and moved some amendments in that regard. I think it is important that we get this right. This is about the rights of victims, the safety of staff and ensuring that action can be taken before dangerous situations escalate. In many cases, it may help parolees stay out of prison by preventing further serious offending, and it ensures that the Parole Board is involved in decisions to cancel parole and return the parolee to prison.

This is not, as the opposition suggests, anything to do with disrespect for the Parole Board. In fact, some of the amendments moved by the government were as a direct result of what the Parole Board has requested. We want to make sure that the provisions are in the act to support tough decisions by the Parole Board for those parolees who continue to re-offend.

I thank the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and Family First for their support. I can reinforce with a great deal of certainty that numerous powers being invested in the CE in this bill are entirely intended to be appropriately delegated by the chief executive, a matter which the Hon. Ann Bressington also raised. I heard the Family First member's position in regard to postponing the bill's progress to incorporate any legislative change that might eventuate from the select committee currently in progress, but I feel there are enough important valid amendments contained in this bill as it is to progress it now. Strengthening the security of the prison system and parole provisions should be dealt with as swiftly as the parliament can allow, in my opinion.

As demonstrated in the course of this bill, the government is open to discussing and adopting improvements to our system, as suggested from a range of sources. We can and should provide mechanisms for a safer community now. We can and should revisit this vital matter as new information or recommendations become available. One does not have to exclude the other.

I also thank members who supported maintaining Executive Council in decisions for releasing life-sentenced prisoners on parole. This government firmly believes that this power should be kept and it is an important check and balance that would be best kept with the government. I appreciate the various views around the existence and use of this power. As the honourable members would be aware, it is a power that is used rarely and in the most serious cases and with utmost caution.

I move now to respond to some of the various specific questions raised by the Hon. Ann Bressington to do with the establishment of the prisoner amenities account. I think the member's questions are very good questions and I thank her for raising them as it allows us to clarify the proposal. The member has asked whether it remains the intention to impose an amenities levy. I am advised that there is no intention to impose a levy. The intention is to continue to recover costs associated with the sale of items to prisoners.

The proposed amendments make it clear that the chief executive shall set prices that reflect the costs associated with selling the item. The intention of this amendment is to have the legislation reflect that practice. It is not the intention to make a profit on the sale of items. Rather, it has been the practice to make available a component of the sale proceeds over and above certain direct and other costs associated with the canteen operations for the purposes of prisoner amenity items, such as sporting goods and items for prisoners.

In regard to reporting on the prisoner amenities account, I am further advised that all of the canteen sales and purchases are good for sale, and other items of expense associated with canteen sales are fully incorporated in the department's audited financial statements, with the balance of the prisoner amenities reserve account clearly observable on the audited balance sheet and relevant note to the accounts. Financial statements are of course published in the department's annual report.

I trust this satisfies the honourable member's questions and once again thank her for raising them. I thank members for their contributions. If there are any outstanding questions that the Hon. Ann Bressington or the Hon. Stephen Wade have made during their second reading contributions, I am happy to deal with those during the committee stage. I commend the bill to you.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In responding to the contribution of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in relation to the delegations (basically, the focus of power in the chief executive with delegations), the minister, and I think the government briefings, indicated that the intention of the government is not to centralise power in the CE but, rather, to make the delegations more orderly. In that context, have regulations been drafted and, if so, are they available?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no, not at this point. They will be done after the bill is completed and we will go through the usual process of consultation with appropriate stakeholders.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of policy decisions as to the direction of those delegations, are there any themes that the government could advise us of? For example, has a policy decision been made to shift delegations from the prison manager level to a head office based officer in relation to a certain class of matters? Are there at least principles the government could advise us of? I take up the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's point that we do not really know whether this bill is a massive centralisation of power in the chief executive without seeing the regulation, so to have an idea of the direction might be helpful.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is currently a schedule of delegations in existence that operates now. That whole schedule will be redrafted, pretty much, to reflect the scope of the current delegations that are available. It is certainly not a grab to ensure the centralisation of powers in the CE.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You use the expression 'schedule of delegations', so it is not a regulation-based document. Is it an internal departmental working document?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised, yes, that is correct.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is proposed under this bill that SAPOL have the ability to arrest a parolee in order to prevent offences and that they will be required to notify the Department for Correctional Services' CE, or their delegate, to determine if a warrant is required, but they can detain this person for up to 12 hours in order to allow for that warrant to be issued. In this 12 hours will there be access to legal representation for that parolee?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that currently parolees in police custody have these rights and there is nothing in this bill that changes the rights of parolees in that situation (or anyone in police detention), so it remains, in effect, business as usual.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In this situation who will it be that makes the decision about what represents the 'serious threat to public safety'? What does this serious threat to public safety entail in terms of who makes that decision and on what grounds do they do it? I am basing this on some advice from Offenders Aid Rehabilitation Services, who have raised a concern about what will constitute that this arrest is properly prescribed and used only when there is indeed a risk of a breach of the individual's parole conditions rather than a serious threat to pubic safety? So, will it be about the parolee's breach of their own conditions or will it be used more broadly as a threat to public safety?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this decision is entirely a police decision, but certainly the assessment of serious threat has in the past incorporated elements around the level of threat to public safety and also the level of threat or risk to the individual themselves.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a few questions and I thought I would put them in debate on clause 1, because I thought it would be better to have them on the record before we proceed further. Also on this, can the minister give an indication of what guidelines are going to be provided to police to ensure that family and, in particular, children, have access after the arrest of a parolee who might actually be a primary career or care provider?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I can reassure the honourable member that there is nothing in this bill that goes to those matters. So, the same provisions that exist currently will apply in the situation to which she refers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Moving further, it has also been raised with me by OARS again that it is not clear if correctional officers will have the lawful right to detain persons for searching, in which case a police officer would become involved in terms of the power of correctional services officers to search persons or vehicles in all areas of gazetted prison reserve, including car parks, prior to entering the prison. They want to know at which point police will be involved in that process, as opposed to Correctional Services officers. Just to assist you, because this will be my follow-up question, what education and information will be provided prior to the implementation of this?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am getting some advice on that, but while I we are getting that, I will address one of the questions that the Hon. Ann Bressington asked about clause 42, amendment to section 68—Conditions of release on parolee. In response to the Hon. Ann Bressington's comments about how the proposed pre-release provisions might work, I can advise that the amendment will not change the current decision-making for release to parole for life sentence prisoners.

The Parole Board would still make a recommendation to the Governor and the Governor would still maintain the decision for release. The proposed amendment gives the Parole Board the option to include prerelease activities for up to one year at a designated site as a condition of the parole. Should the parolee not perform the reintegration activities satisfactorily, it would be deemed a breach of parole and the board could return the parolee to a higher security facility.

Applications for release to parole require a significant amount of consideration, particularly in relation to assessing risk to the community. The prisoner must have taken adequate steps to address their offending behaviour. The Parole Board forwards recommendations for life sentence prisoners' release to parole to His Excellency the Governor in Executive Council for consideration. His Excellency may, on receiving the board's recommendation, order that the prisoner be released from prison on parole for a specified period, or the Governor in Executive Council may refuse the application.

Life sentence prisoners who are not approved for parole transfer back to a high-security facility. To address this, the bill has an extra provision that enables the Parole Board to consider including a condition of the parole release that the prisoner participate in reintegration activities prior to release on parole to the community. The prerelease activities would occur at an appropriate facility operated by the Department for Correctional Services that can best facilitate such activities being undertaken, such as the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre.

This will address any concerns about expenditure of resources on prerelease activities if a life sentence prisoner is ultimately not released to parole and transfers back to a high-security facility. I am told that the department has drafted a policy for life sentence prisoners undertaking prerelease activities at the prerelease centre that would see greater liaison with the Parole Board about life sentence prisoners who have applied to the board for release to parole.

The policy seeks to ensure that decisions with respect to life sentence prisoners being transferred to the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre are made with more information at hand. The policy is only in draft and has not been implemented pending these amendments before parliament. It is intended that the policy be updated should these amendments be passed to wholly complement the provisions of the bill.

Just in response to the Hon. Tammy Franks, I have been advised that we are not changing search powers already under 85B in the act; we are merely extending those powers to include car parks and prison grounds. If a person refuses to consent to a search, they can leave the prison grounds. It is anticipated that this will further prevent contraband getting in to our prisons.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Was there going to be an education process prior to the implementation of that, or will you just simply start it once it starts?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that correctional officers are already fairly well trained in those procedures and, if they identify any further needs, they obviously will be accommodated.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was not asking about the correctional services officers, I was asking about informing visitors prior to the implementation of this policy.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that visitors are always extremely well informed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I want to ask a question in relation to the answer given to the Hon. Ann Bressington. The minister mentioned that the Parole Board could place conditions that involved the Department for Correctional Services providing services before a lifer is released. Would the fact that the Parole Board had put those conditions on require the department to provide those services or, alternatively, would the Parole Board not put such conditions on without knowing that the department stood ready to provide those services?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the department will comply with conditions imposed by the Parole Board to undertake prerelease activities in accordance with the provision of the bill, so they will be required to comply.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:18]