Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 October 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:09): I rise today to indicate that on the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill I will be the lead speaker for Labor and have conduct of this bill. This bill echoes many of the provisions of the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 that was introduced by the previous Labor government but did not pass before parliament was prorogued.

In broad terms, the bill is aimed at reducing the threat and problem of drugs in prison. The opposition is happy to support the bill, but it is only a small portion of the bill that was introduced under the Labor government, with much being left out. My colleague in another place, the member for Elizabeth and shadow minister for police, filed a number of amendments adding to and restricting this bill. It is disappointing that the government in the other place did not see fit to support some of those sensible measures.

I will take the opportunity to go through some of those amendments. I foreshadow that we are not moving them in this place, but I think it is important in the context to go through some of the amendments that were moved in another place. The first was an introduction of buffer zones around prisons regarding the possession and trafficking of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. Creating an area around a prison where the penalties for possession and/or trafficking are significantly increased reflects that drugs should be nowhere near prisons.

In addition, there was the prevention of automatic parole for offences of dealing or trafficking drugs. Currently, prisoners who are sentenced to less than five years in prison for offences of dealing and trafficking are eligible for automatic parole. The third amendment was to prevent prisoners from contacting, directly or indirectly, any victim, alleged victim or persons associated with their offending.

There was also an amendment to prevent people under the age of 18 from visiting prisoners with any conviction for child sex offences, whether or not those convictions are related to their imprisonment. The current legislation only prevents people under 18 from visiting prisoners with a current conviction for child sex offences.

I understand that the minister and shadow minister have had some discussion and came to an agreement on the form of words about this, and those words are now reflected in the bill we see before us. I will indicate that we do not intend to revisit the issues that were agitated in the lower house, but it may be something that is discussed at some time later in terms of further bills in relation to Correctional Services. With those words, I indicate Labor's support for the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:12): I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this bill. The bill fulfils the government's 100-day election commitment to a zero tolerance policy in relation to drugs in prisons. Stopping drugs entering our prisons remains a priority for this government, to protect both employees and prisoners. This bill also strengthens an existing provision in the act to ensure the protection of vulnerable children is the overriding consideration when decisions are made about allowing child sex offenders to have underage visitors.

The key objective of this bill is to deliver important reform that supports the government's war on drugs policy and delivers enhanced safety and security in South Australian prisons. I advise the council that there are more reforms to come. It has been rightly noted by the Hon. Tammy Franks that this bill does not include important amendments around investigative powers of the chief executive. These powers are necessary to ensure the obligation of staff to give an account of a matter under investigation.

The Minister for Correctional Services, the Hon. Corey Wingard, and the department's chief executive, Mr David Brown, met with the Hon. Tammy Franks earlier this week and provided her with an assurance that these powers, and other more important amendments, will be introduced in a new Correctional Services bill to be brought to parliament in early 2019. I reiterate on behalf of the government that assurance to the whole council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In addition to the consultation that Labor conducted on a very similar bill, what further or better consultation was conducted by the new government on the introduction of this bill, and who provided submissions in relation to that consultation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised the government relied on information the department had received before the end of the last parliament. If it may facilitate the council, I recognise the matters the honourable member raised that have been raised by the shadow minister in the other place. I am advised that the matters that were raised that have not been the subject of amendments in the other place will be considered as part of the second reform that I referred to in my summing-up statement.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to a testing regime, can the minister outline in practical terms how the testing regime will work?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will offer some general comments and if the member would like more specificity, he can follow-up with questions. The amendment at clause 8 meets the government's commitment to infuse workplace testing of prison officers, staff and contractors for alcohol and illegal drugs. Introducing drug and alcohol testing strengthens the government's and the department's stance against the scourge of drugs and sets a high standard of professionalism, integrity and transparency.

The provisions mirror SAPOL's approach to staff testing. It is anticipated the testing will focus on common drugs of concern as determined through consultation with SAPOL and SA Pathology. It is proposed that the department will undertake a process to appoint a contractor to administer an independent testing program, which includes providing breathalysers and drug testing equipment and undertaking the testing analysis and reporting functions. This amendment will assist the Department for Correctional Services to block potential avenues for drug incursion and increase the safety, security and integrity of the prison system.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: More specifically, what drugs will be tested for and how will they be tested?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I mentioned, it is anticipated the testing will focus on common drugs of concern, as determined through consultation with SAPOL and SA Pathology, so the Department for Correctional Services will consult with both the police and SA Pathology on that matter. As I have already indicated, to the extent that the provisions will mirror SAPOL's approach to staff testing, it may well be that, depending on their seniority and their position, different officers might be tested for different drugs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under the new 81T that is in clause 8 of the bill, what happens if an employee refuses to be tested?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that if an employee or officer was to refuse, it is likely to be taken as a positive, but that will need to be the subject of consultation. I will undertake, post the passage of the bill, if that is the will of the council, to advise the member of the current practice of SAPOL. As I said, this regime is going to be influenced by the SAPOL regime. I am advised that DPTI does regard a refusal as a positive but, as I said, I will seek further advice in relation to the police approach in relation to a refusal to submit.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to 81V, what happens if a visitor refuses to be tested? Is that visitor automatically refused access to the facility, and what happens if a visitor tests positive?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In relation to the first question, if a visitor refuses to submit to testing then their access to the facility will be refused. I am advised that if a visitor tested positive they would also be refused unless they could provide a lawful reason as to why they were testing positive; for example, medical.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to 81X, how are the results of the tests recorded and who will have access to those records; that is, the records of the results of the tests?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This section prevents a test result from being used for another purpose; for example, by the police in relation to drug use and so on. A test undertaken for the purposes of this part is not admissible in any other proceeding. It ensures that samples are only used for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings under the Public Sector Act 2009 and for the reasons as set out in this act.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is there a provision to drug test prisoners?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. The department currently uses methods including urinalysis, saliva testing and breath testing to detect the presence of substances from prisoners. The process is defined in the standing operating procedure. SA Pathology is responsible for the testing of all samples from prisoners. Penalties and regime modifications applied to prisoners identified as having a positive test are administered in accordance with the Correctional Services Act 1982. I am advised that late in the 2017-18 financial year there had been over 5,000 drug tests and nearly 100,000 searches conducted in South Australian prisons to detect contraband and illicit drugs.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How many were positive?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have that information to hand but I will certainly undertake to get it and provide it to the honourable member.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What penalties are applied when prisoners test positive to drugs?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the penalties applicable to offences under the Correctional Services Act are detailed in the Correctional Services Regulations, and that includes penalties related to illicit drugs and alcohol.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Could the minister come back with the number of prisoners who were penalised for drug offences?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am certainly happy to do so. I should make clear that, in relation to the undertakings I am giving to provide information, I am assuming that members are happy to receive that after the passage of the legislation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, and we undertake to do so.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I understand the Hon. Ms Bonaros wanted to ask some questions about clause 7, although we have passed clause 7. If the house is agreeable, we will allow that. We have passed it in terms of voting, but there is no reason why we could not have a question on it, if the minister is happy.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to receive the question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: This is in no way reflective of any position of SA-Best, but there was one thing that was highlighted to us, and I did undertake to ask this during the committee stage. Clause 7 deals with the issue of visits by children to prisoners who have been found guilty of child sex offending. I preface this by saying I understand that there is the ability there to give permission to a visitor, by the chief executive, but have we contemplated a situation where Family Court orders are perhaps put in place which gives a parent who is guilty of such an offence access rights under those circumstances?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that if the chief executive was made aware of a Family Court order they would certainly consider it. Of course, public officers would always give due regard to a court order such as that, but it is our view that the chief executive could still make a judgement that, in spite of the Family Court order, he or she was not going to give permission. To reiterate, the chief executive officer would give consideration to the order and would be likely to accept it, unless there were overriding considerations.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That would then be communicated, I suppose, back to the court so we understand that the reason there is no access is because the chief executive has said so.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I agree with the honourable member. One would certainly expect the department would then communicate with the person involved and, if necessary, the court.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (9 and 10) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.