CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (GPS TRACKING FOR CHILD SEX OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:10): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Correctional Services Act 1982. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In addition to my Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Mandatory Imprisonment of Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill, today I introduce another bill that I hope will, if enacted, further enhance our community's protection from convicted child sex offenders. The Correctional Services (GPS Tracking for Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill quite simply enables paedophiles either on parole or on a leave of absence from prison to be fitted with global positioning system trackers by which their every move can be monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and breaches of their conditions can be identified and punished.

Just as New South Wales, Queensland and to a lesser extent Victoria have recognised, sex offenders, and particularly paedophiles, have one of the highest recidivism rates of all offenders and, given the harm their offending causes, for the protection of the community they require additional monitoring and surveillance upon their release from prison.

My bill will require the Parole Board, when assessing a parole application by a child sex offender, to consider whether the offender should be required as part of their parole conditions to be subject to GPS tracking. Additionally, the chief executive will also be able to require a child sex offender applying for a leave of absence to attend, say, an education facility to wear a GPS tracker.

This will apply to those convicted of a child sex offence as defined in the Correctional Services Act 1982, which includes any of the following offences committed against a child under the age of 16: rape; compelled sexual manipulation; indecent assault; persistent sexual exploitation of a child; incest; an offence involving unlawful sexual intercourse; an offence involving an act of gross indecency; an offence involving child prostitution; an offence involving indecency or sexual misbehaviour, including an offence against Part 3 Division 11A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, or against section 23 or 35 of the Summary Offences Act 1953; an attempt to commit, or assault with intent to commit, any of the offences referred to in the above paragraphs; and any other offence (such as homicide or abduction) if there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the offences referred to in the above paragraphs were also committed by the same person against or in relation to the child in the course of, or as part of the events surrounding, the commission of an offence.

Earlier this year, the Western Australian government announced that it too would be introducing GPS tracking for its most serious child sex offenders. As other jurisdictions have done, it is planning to use the software accompanying the devices to create exclusion zones, such as schools, kindergartens, day-care centres, parks, playgrounds, public toilets and, most importantly, the neighbourhoods of previous victims, which will alert those monitoring if a child sex offender enters any of these places.

Applying this to a South Australian case, Mark Trevor Marshall, the paedophile who was the subject of the protest on the steps of parliament last year, would have been deterred and, if not, identified early, when he went to the primary school of his then stepdaughter, where he would routinely take her off site, abuse her and then return her to the school. He did this while he was meant to be at a nearby TAFE campus, which I believe was approved as part of his parole conditions; if not, it was approved as part of his pre-release from detention.

In addition to exclusion zones, my understanding of the software accompanying GPS trackers is that it also enables the creation of inclusion zones, with alerts being used if an offender leaves the area. If utilised, this will enable the Parole Board to restrict the paedophile's movements to a confined area or, alternatively, better monitor other conditions imposed as part of their parole conditions, such as a curfew.

There are studies that show the effectiveness of GPS tracking of either child sex offenders or parolees more generally. As an example, I point to the review by the Florida Department of Corrections, which found monitoring by GPS halved recidivism compared with those supervised without it. There is limited quantitative research available. Many studies focus on individual case experiences or attempt to measure the qualitative deterrent effect on offenders.

While many are supportive of GPS tracking, such studies, of course, have their limitations. Here in Australia the few GPS tracking systems in place have so far been limited in duration and, to my knowledge, have not been comprehensively reviewed. However, anecdotal reports in the media are promising, with the Queensland system triggering 287 alarms in December 2011 by the 39 high-risk sex offenders fitted with GPS tracking devices, 53 of which were serious enough for follow up, with many of these leading to breaches of parole.

The Courier-Mail reported that authorities acknowledged at the time that these breaches 'would not have been detected so quickly, if at all'. As a testament, I guess, to the sex offenders' consciousness of being tracked, two inmates in the same period had attempted to remove the GPS device, with one successfully doing so before throwing it out of a car window. Needless to say, such interference is detected and would represent a violation of their parole conditions.

As part of its push for the use of GPS tracking for child sex offenders, the Courier-Mail revealed in May 2011 that a significant number of paedophiles were breaching their licence conditions, including one who tried to abduct a boy from a skate park. This revelation rightly resulted in community outrage, which was channelled into the demand for GPS tracking. Numerous prominent names lent their support to the campaign and within months the Bligh Labor government announced it would be introducing GPS monitoring for child sex offenders. Since then the Queensland government has sung its praises.

In addition to extolling the virtues of GPS tracking for monitoring compliance with parole conditions, the then Queensland police and corrective services minister, Neil Roberts MP, is quoted as saying:

It's provided additional intelligence. For example, a person might be visiting a location that they're quite lawfully able to do within their order on a regular basis. That's led to questions, 'Well, why are they going there' and they've identified another sex offender in that vicinity.

Similarly, the New South Wales government praises its limited program for monitoring high-risk sex offenders.

In responding to my bill, I have no doubt the government will draw attention to proposed subsection 68(1aa) in the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011, which enables electronic monitoring as a parole condition, and attempt to suggest that the bill I introduced today duplicates this. Instead, I suggest that my bill enhances the broad and non-obligatory ability to consider electronic monitoring by compelling the Parole Board to consider whether to impose GPS tracking as a condition of parole in all applications made by child sex offenders. In doing so they must, of course, have regard to the legislated paramount consideration of community safety.

Similar to the requirement to consider whether a child sex offender should be prevented from providing accommodation to a child for whom they do not have custody, under my bill the Parole Board must turn its attention to, and consider whether, a child sex offender's whereabouts should be monitored whilst on parole. This, I know, has the support of the Parole Board, with the head of the Parole Board saying in a recent Advertiser article that it would be 'very helpful'. Further, as discussed, my bill enables GPS monitoring of those inmates released from prison prior to parole, something the government bill does not do.

The irony in advancing this argument is that the government currently has no intention of introducing GPS tracking for any parolee, let alone child sex offenders. Shortly after the Queensland government's announcement that it too would begin using GPS monitoring on its parolees, mainly paedophiles, a journalist contacted the then minister for correctional services, Tom Koutsantonis MP, who said that there were no current plans for GPS monitoring, despite it being theoretically enabled in the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The minister considered, to quote the Adelaidenow article, that 'the current monitoring of offenders on home detention bail is adequate.'

It is beyond me how the minister can find any correlation between the use of home detention radio frequency devices, with all their limitations, for those who are yet to be convicted and GPS monitoring, which provides 24/7 location data, for convicted child sex offenders on parole. By narrowing the focus to child sex offenders it is my hope the government will reconsider its position on GPS tracking to protect the community from these most heinous offenders, a sentiment recently echoed by the Victorian shadow minister for corrections Jill Hennessy MP who, in response to the Victorian government's announcement that it would be expanding its GPS monitoring program to those on low level community corrections orders, said:

The government should focus its resources on monitoring sex offenders properly before it stumbles into these uncharted waters...There will be over 10,000 individuals on the Sex Offender Register by 2020. The priority should be keeping children safe.

I do not pretend that establishing GPS tracking of child sex offenders will be cheap, although it should be noted that the cost of the GPS units themselves is not exorbitant. Whilst governments routinely cite commercial in confidence, it is understood that in the most recent acquisition in Queensland the GPS anklets cost some $3,000 each. Victoria reportedly paid $3,000 to $3,500 for their devices, and New South Wales, some years ago, paid some $5,000 each. The true cost, of course, lies in monitoring; however, Western Australia has reportedly set aside only $6 million over four years, which I believe is not an exorbitant cost, given the benefits to community safety that it brings.

Despite GPS tracking having been extensively trialled in America, and now being compulsory for child sex offenders in many states, I would nonetheless welcome the government, if it is not going to support my bill, to at least trial GPS trackers for child sex offenders here in South Australia. I have no doubt this would expose all that we miss in our current supervision of child sex offenders, nor do I doubt that it would be welcomed by the public. I note that 80 per cent of respondents to the Adelaidenow survey were in favour of satellite tracking of dangerous offenders.

I also note that tomorrow I will table a petition with over 1,700 signatures in favour of my Criminal Sentencing (Mandatory Imprisonment of Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill. The management of convicted child sex offenders is clearly of concern to our constituents, and I hope that, by supporting these bills, it is of concern to this parliament as well. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.