Correctional Services (Parole) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2015.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (12:21): I rise today on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Correctional Services (Parole) Amendment Bill transmitted to this place and read a first time on 18 June. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill, but I do want to make a brief contribution for the benefit of the chamber. I will start with one of the more significant and controversial aspects of this bill, and that is the section which seeks to remove the power of the executive to prevent those serving life sentences from being paroled.

When we talk of the executive here, we mean the Governor in Council, who of course acts almost exclusively on the advice of his ministers. The power of the Governor dates back a long time in the history of this province and is not necessarily controversial if used sparingly and in the right circumstances. However, in recent times the tendency to use the prole of convicted serious offenders as a political plaything in law and order debates, especially in election years, is manifest. This has been particularly true of the current Labor government, in particular under the tutelage of His Excellency the Hon. Mike Rann. I welcome this change from the government and, in a rare moment of magnanimity, the Attorney-General has heeded the calls of the judicial arm of government and has ceded some power.

The new process for dealing with the parole of those serving life sentences is established by this bill. Under the provisions of this bill, a parole administrative review commissioner (PARC) will be established. The commissioner will undertake a review of the Parole Board's decision to refuse or grant parole of a prisoner if a review is sought by the following: the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of Police and/or the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. Once the review has been completed, the PARC will then uphold the decision of the Parole Board, make a decision of their own or send the matter back to the Parole Board with directions or recommendations. In this sense, the PARC has inherited the powers once reserved for the Governor in Council.

The opposition believes this to be a very reasonable change. On one hand, we welcome removing what is essentially judicial responsibility from the responsibility of the executive, whilst technically the commission will be a statutory body. Those eligible to be appointed as the PARC will exclusively be former court judges, making it judicial in character. It is worth noting that the change from Governor veto is welcomed by the Presiding Member of the Parole Board, the diligent and passionate Frances Nelson QC, the Law Society and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights.

A further change to those granted parole whilst serving life sentences will now be subject to monitoring and parole conditions for the remainder of their life. The current provisions are a parole period lasting between six months and the remainder of the parolee's natural life. Naturally, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights welcomes this change, as does the opposition, and this has the effect that life sentences now actually mean life in every sense.

I should note that the conditions imposed on parolees are set and can be altered by the Parole Board and that the aim of this legislation should not be to undermine their good work and the trust that the government and the parliament place in that body. Therefore, the Parole Board can and should be trusted to make a call on those conditions and on how tough or lenient they are. The easing of these conditions over time, providing the parolee is showing genuine reform in their behaviour, should be the purpose of our parole system. The concerns of those who feel that a prisoner who has done their time and therefore should be free to pursue a new life are noted, but I believe that the Parole Board should be trusted in this area.

A final point on the significant aspects of this bill are on the 'No body, no parole' provisions. 'No body, no parole' is the flashy campaign name given to the policy of refusing parole to those convicted of murder who refuse to cooperate with authorities on the whereabouts of their victims. As the very good member for Morialta noted, this policy would be better known as 'no cooperation, no parole' but of course that would hardly look as good on a DL flyer—but then enough of the cynicism.

The opposition welcomes these provisions as they attempt to give the families of victims peace of mind in their being able to lay their loved ones to rest. Often our criminal justice system has copped criticism for not doing enough for victims, and perhaps these changes will go some way to rectifying that disconnect. The effect of the changes are such that the Commissioner of Police will provide a report to the Parole Board indicating the level of the prisoner's cooperation with the investigation for which the Parole Board will make a determination.

I wish to thank the honourable member for Morialta from another place for his work on formulating our party's position on this bill and for his assistance to me and my office on these issues. As I indicated earlier, the opposition will be supporting the bill. I look forward to hearing the contributions and perspectives of other honourable members. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:27): I will not be two hours speaking about this particular bill, but I will be more than two minutes. Family First is pleased to be able to advise the house that we will be supporting this bill. I have had a discussion with the minister, the Hon. Tony Piccolo, in another house, and I think that there is a great deal of common sense being put into this particular piece of legislation.

I place on the public record my confidence, over a very long period of time, with any work I have done with Frances Nelson QC (the head of the Parole Board), the Parole Board, the CEO of the Parole Board and subsequence CEOs of the Parole Board. It is a very, very good board that does great work in deliberating release conditions and the like regarding offenders towards the end of their sentence. They take their work very seriously, and they are a skilful, experienced, intelligent board led by one of South Australia's most prominent people in Frances Nelson, and the parliament can sit comfortably, in my opinion, with the work they are doing presently.

There has been something that has concerned me for a very long period of time. The now deceased Hon. Trevor Griffin, who I worked with for several years and who was a very experienced and intelligent attorney-general for 11 years in this state, taught me some things when I became a young minister, and the first thing he said was, 'Be very careful about how you interfere with the Parole Board recommendations,' notwithstanding the fact that as the minister for correctional services through to cabinet you did have opportunities of putting up papers and advising cabinet of taking a different decision to the recommendations of the board.

But I can say that, during those years as a Liberal minister, neither myself, nor the attorney-general, nor the cabinet ever interfered with a recommendation of the Parole Board that I can recall. In fact, on only one occasion did the Governor ask some questions, as the Governor has the right to ask before they sign off on Executive Council. What happened just a few years after Labor got into office from 2002 with the then premier, the Hon. Mike Rann, was that he decided that it was politically beneficial for him to pick and choose whether or not he agreed with the recommendations of the Parole Board, taking into consideration none of the assessments and work that was diligently done by the Parole Board but rather what would make a good headline in the media that night.

Therefore, what happened was that, for a period of time, for several years in fact, we had prisoners, some of whom may have well and truly deserved parole, being denied parole time after time, notwithstanding the fact that the Parole Board had put recommendation after recommendation up that that particular prisoner should have been released on parole. I am sure that in the cabinet, towards the later years of the Rann government when premier Rann was the premier, ministers must have found it increasingly difficult to play politics with decisions of the Parole Board. I did not see in recent years the government playing politics like premier Rann did.

Whilst I do not always agree with what the government or the minister—in this case, the Hon. Tony Piccolo—puts forward, I have told minister Piccolo that we think this is a very sensible move. There are still checks and balances. I do not think this bill is ideal. I would have liked to have perhaps had more involvement with the Parole Board in the way this bill was developed; notwithstanding that, this is a huge step forward. It will actually, I believe, firstly, take the politics out of decision-making on whether prisoners should have approval for parole and other associated issues. Secondly, it will actually be a lot better for the ministers and the cabinet that they do not have to interfere with the recommendations.

It will also be fairer for those prisoners because, whilst there are some cases at times when a prisoner should never be released, I have had representation more than once from families where the prisoner had shown proper rehabilitation, had tried everything in their powers to amend their offending and were looking for a chance to go back into mainstream society but were being denied by the cabinet. That is not going to happen in the future, if we accept this bill. It will also, I think, long-term be better for whoever is in government because the government of the day will not be playing politics with the lives of people who have made mistakes and deservedly had to pay retribution to society but, after consideration by the Parole Board, believe that they should be given a democratic right to parole and therefore released into the South Australian community.

With those few words, we agree with the general principles of this bill. I look forward to its passage, and I look forward to not having to read in the media anymore that the government decided to play politics with someone. As I say, there are checks and balances in there with the commission's structure but, like the opposition, Family First will be supporting this bill for the government.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade.

Sitting suspended from 12:34 to 14:15.