Bills

Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendments.

In speaking to that motion, if I can summarise: the bill was debated in the House of Assembly and amendments were made. There was vigorous disagreement between the position that the government put and that the opposition and others took in this chamber on one very significant issue. I will return to that in a moment.

What then transpired was that the bill passed in an amended form. It has gone to the House of Assembly and the government has maintained its position and sent the bill back to the chamber in its original form. The council now has the opportunity to either insist on the amendments or, from the government's viewpoint, to no longer insist on its amendments, that is, to support the bill in its original form. If the council insists on its amendments then the bill in its amended form would again be sent to the House of Assembly.

I am going through this in laborious detail for new members to the chamber, not for political veterans like the Hon. Mr Parnell, who is well experienced in these things. For new members, it would mean that we would set up the capacity for what is known as a conference of managers, where five members from the House of Assembly meet with five members from the Legislative Council in an endeavour to resolve the differences between the two houses. It is either for one house or the other to concede or potentially come up with some compromise set of amendments. In the end, the bill might come back in an amended form or be laid aside in its entirety. All those options are possible once we get into a conference of managers.

I will return to the position of the government. As I said, we are asking the Legislative Council, on reflection, not to insist on the amendments that it made. When we debated this in this chamber, I highlighted the fact that the position the Labor Party were adopting was in essence saying that, in their view, it was okay for child molesters, paedophiles, pornographers, rapists and others of that ilk to have a vote. The position seems to be, 'We need to rehabilitate these people. They are capable of being rehabilitated, and part of rehabilitating them is that we shouldn't be mean and take away their right to vote.'

The government's position is much clearer and much more explicit than that. We are saying clearly that, if you are a child molester, a paedophile, a child pornographer, a rapist or a drug trafficker and you have been sentenced to imprisonment of three years or more, we think that you have forfeited your right to vote. It is a pretty simple proposition. As circumstances might prevail in relation to this, this week, Mr Vivian Frederick Deboo has been gaoled for a period of at least six years and seven months after he lost his bid for home detention in relation to a series of assaults of young boys—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Children.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Children, my colleague Mr Stephens indicates—many decades ago. There would not be a South Australian who, over recent weeks, has not seen the scenes outside the courthouse in Adelaide as victims and their supporters protested the atrocities this Mr Deboo committed against these children many decades ago. All through this period, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Mr Malinauskas; the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, Mr Maher; and others have sought to portray themselves as some sort of opponent of paedophiles such as Mr Deboo.

In essence, they have characterised him as a pox on society, as some sort of scum that deserves no support at all. They campaigned in and around the home of Mr Deboo, expressing concern that this particular person might be allowed to serve in-home detention at his home. They endeavoured to portray themselves as opponents, as people who would do whatever they could to prevent this particular person from serving in-home detention for whatever period of sentence the court might apply. Yet we have these very same people—the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, Mr Maher—leading the charge to say that this person, this Vivian Fredrick Deboo, who has just been sentenced, should be allowed to vote for them at the next election.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you are the ones who are defending him. The Hon. Mr Wortley, you are the ones who are defending his right to vote, because you are the ones who are saying Mr Deboo and his like are capable of rehabilitation. You are his champion. You are the one defending his right to vote. You are the one who is saying, 'This person, even though he's a paedophile, even though he's committed these atrocities against these children from decades ago, even though we say he's the scum of the earth, he's a pox on society', and every other phrase that you want to use when you're seeking to curry favour with the local community out there, but when the rubber hits the road, when push comes to shove, when you have an opportunity in this chamber to say, 'Enough's enough, we're not going to let paedophiles like this particular bloke have a vote at the next state election', to be able to vote for the Labor Party, or their like, at the next election, the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the Hon. Mr Maher, and the Leader of the Opposition in another chamber, Mr Malinauskas, champion the right of paedophiles like Mr Deboo to be able to have a vote at the next election.

In this debate this afternoon I implore the Leader of the Opposition and others to actually back down, back off, and say, 'Enough's enough; we got it wrong, and we're not going to stand up in this chamber and continue to fight for the rights'—as they would argue—'of Mr Deboo' and other paedophiles like him, drug traffickers, child pornographers, rapists, all of them. These are the ones the Labor Party want to champion. These are the ones they want to defend. These are the ones they say are entitled to vote because this is part of their rehabilitation process, this is part of their right, and this government has been cruel and mean in saying to these rapists, these paedophiles, these child pornographers, these drug traffickers, 'Enough's enough, and if you're going to commit those sorts of heinous crimes then society and this parliament in particular, is going to say, "Well, we say to you you're not entitled to a vote".'

I challenge those members to stand up in this chamber and defend why, and to say to the victims of Mr Deboo and others why, they believe Mr Deboo should be entitled to vote at the next state election for Labor candidates and Labor members all over the place. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to get up and argue why Mr Deboo and his like should be entitled to a vote.

I would implore the Labor Party and the other crossbenchers, who perhaps were duped by the Labor Party into supporting this particular position, now to see that the atrocity they are being asked to commit. It is bad enough the atrocity that these people have committed, but for this chamber to sanction it in any way by saying, 'We think these people are entitled to vote for Labor candidates and Labor members at the next state election, and we are prepared to stand up in this chamber'—I would hope that if the Labor Party do not have the decency to back down and say they got it wrong that those crossbenchers who when we last debated it supported the Labor Party will back down and say, 'We got it wrong. We're now prepared to support the position of the government on these amendments.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not go into the shouty mode that the Leader of the Government in this chamber has gone into. I think the one thing that he has not done today, that he had not done when this last was before the chamber and that no-one in the Liberal Party has done is tell us in any way how this makes our community safer. That is the one big thing that is missing from this: what way at all will this proposed legislation make this community any safer? They have not done that. The reason they have not done that is because it does not. There is a not single skerrick of evidence—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You just want their vote.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —that suggests that this will make the community any safer at all. The Leader of the Government interjects that we just want their votes. When you look at the current government's attitude on people who have committed child sex offences, they are much softer than we have been in opposition. If prisoners had an incentive to vote for anyone, it would be the Attorney-General and her party.

Let's have a little bit of a look at the recent history of proposed changes that the opposition has put forward. When Colin Humphrys was potentially going to be released because at that time the law did not require him to change his attitude that he was no longer capable of controlling his sexual instincts, the opposition identified that and moved a private members' bill.

We moved that private members' bill, because we are not some sort of opponent: we are vicious opponents of child sex offenders. We absolutely think that they are the scum of the earth and commit atrocities against children and should face the full weight of the law. When it looked like Colin Humphrys had a possibility of being released from gaol, even though he could not demonstrate that he was now capable of controlling his sexual instincts, the opposition moved a private members' bill in the lower house.

It was one particular Monday morning when this matter became public, and Vickie Chapman, as Attorney-General, stated that morning that she had no intention of supporting the opposition's change in the law or doing anything in this regard because she wanted the court processes to play out. She wanted to see if Colin Humphrys was going to be released. She wanted to see if a notorious paedophile was going to be released into the community. That was her view that Monday morning: let's just see what happens. There is a bit of legislation that could stop Colin Humphrys, a notorious paedophile, getting out of gaol, but that morning the Liberal Attorney-General's view was, 'Let's just wait for the court processes, let's not interfere, let's see if this dangerous paedophile is released on the streets to offend again.' That was her view at the start of the process.

Thankfully, a cabinet meeting intervened and she was quite sensibly wrapped over the knuckles by her colleagues—and I hope the Leader of the Government in this place was one of those people—and told, 'This is the wrong thing to do. We need to make the community safe. We do not want dangerous paedophiles like Colin Humphrys having a chance of being let out onto the street, particularly when there is no evidence that he is now willing or capable of controlling his sexual instincts.' When we talk about making the community safer and dangerous paedophiles, it is the Liberal government who has form on going easy on them.

We have seen it more recently in the case of Vivian Deboo. The court was contemplating a submission for court-ordered home detention for Vivian Deboo, another notorious child sex offender. The Labor opposition put a private members' bill before the chamber that would have taken away the option of court-ordered home detention for child sex offenders—it would have taken that option away. Again, the Liberal Attorney-General came out and said, 'No, no, no, we don't want to do that. We don't want to absolutely guarantee the community is safe. Let's just let the court processes play out.' Inexplicably, her cabinet colleagues did not intervene and on this occasion allowed that to happen.

We are extraordinarily fortunate that Mr Deboo was not granted court-ordered home detention, because the Labor opposition had a bill that would have guaranteed he could not get it, but this Liberal government preferred to roll the dice and take the chance that maybe he would or would not get it. So when the Liberal government says we are soft on those who commit offences such as these, they are hypocrites and they are not telling the truth at all. We have been more firm on these sorts of offenders than the Liberal government has themselves.

That brings me back to the main point and the thing that the Liberal government has failed to convince the majority of the people in this chamber about: what one way at all does this make the community safer? There has not been one single way that has been suggested and because of that they have failed to gain the support of the Legislative Council. I would suggest that the Liberal government should look at practical ways that will actually make the community safer, like Labor has suggested, and not ways that, on their own admission, make no difference to community safety.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Despite the Treasurer's baiting, I hope not to allow his cheap shot to dictate completely the tenor of this debate. At its heart, the government's position on convicted criminals, who receive punishment in the form of a term of imprisonment, is that their separation from society must be so complete and so absolute that when they do come back they will have a further road to travel to integrate, at any level, back into society.

I am thinking: the minister has not gone far enough. I think we could deny them food. On heinous offending, let's deny them food or, a bit less flippantly, let's deny them education in gaol. Let's deny them the right to improve their reading or writing. Really, they do not deserve to have any form of rehabilitation if we follow the government's logic right through. If we accept that 99 per cent of prisoners come back into society, and we want them to come back better, then keeping this thin cord of connection with the community relating to a very small number of people, I think, is an important connection to maintain.

However, if we are going down the hypocrisy path I can think of a number of corporate criminals, and I can think of companies that have been prosecuted for killing their workers. How do I know? They are on the Liberal Party donor register. Let's think about that. There are people who are so heinous that they cannot vote, yet corporate criminals who have broken environmental laws, industrial health and safety laws are quite appropriate as donors to the Liberal Party. Really, where does this hypocrisy end?

In terms of the motion that the Legislative Council not insist on its amendment, the Greens will be opposing that motion. We think the Legislative Council should insist on its amendment. That is not to say that, if it does come back in a deadlock conference, we are not open to further discussion. It may well be that the government might want to come back and say that those guilty of electoral fraud have lost the right to vote. Why do we not debate that amendment, at least there is a consequence that directly follows that criminal activity.

I hope the Legislative Council will insist on this amendment. Whilst the Greens would have been happy not to have had a bill at all, and to have kept the status quo, we accepted that the Labor amendment drastically improved what was an awful bill, and we were happy to support it on that basis. I would urge fellow legislative councillors to continue to insist on the sensible amendment that the Legislative Council made.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I indicate SA-Best's position and associate myself specifically with the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell, particularly in relation to some of the points raised by the Treasurer and on the baiting of members on the crossbench, in terms of whether we have made the right or wrong decision. If there is room for change I am sure that will become apparent in a deadlock conference situation. If that is the will of this parliament then that is the will of this parliament, and that is what the government is going to have to accept.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I reiterate the views of my honourable colleague Connie Bonaros and also that of Mark Parnell. I was listening to debate in the other place the other day, particularly from the government's side of things, and there was one word that I did not hear uttered in their commentary about this amendment—the word 'rehabilitation'. Nobody spoke about the rehabilitation of these people.

Like the Leader of the Opposition and unlike what was indicated last time by the Hon. Rob Lucas, I am probably one of those who is most harsh on criminals and on sentences handed out to criminals. In fact, it was only recently—a few weeks ago—that I first raised the issue of discounts given to child killers who were basically going to court, pleading guilty and getting a 40 per cent discount for heinous crimes. This seemed to be quite acceptable until, of course, it was raised publicly and then the Attorney-General has now decided that she will review it.

To say that we are sitting back and seem to be supporting these criminals in gaol, for some reason, just because we will not support the government on this is ludicrous. They are locked away. As the Hon. Kyam Maher indicated, it is not going to make society any safer at all. Rehabilitation should be one of the key things we look at when you send people to gaol, and that is not happening enough because there is too much recidivism in our system. So we will be sticking to our guns but, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros indicated, we are quite willing to listen to the government if they want some other compromise, perhaps. They might have another idea on it. We are happy to sit down and talk it over with them.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I just want to say a few words. I will start by noting the role of prisons in our society. They are institutions that are there for criminals to be infirmed and punished for their crimes but they also serve a rehabilitation and reforming role. That does not extend to then taking away any other entitlements and rights that individuals who happen to be criminals may have. The government's position on this matter appears to be somewhat misguided. If the concern is that those who have committed serious crimes—rapists, murderers, paedophiles, drug traffickers—should not have the right to vote, these amendments do not affect that.

In terms of the amendments, if it is a serious crime, they will not have the right to vote. If there are concerns about the sentencing, then the government needs to address sentencing issues not issues about whether a human being has a right to be a part of this society in whatever way they are able and wherever they are housed. That is the essential element of this amendment and it is not taking away anything that the government is raising. Those who have committed serious crimes will forfeit the right to vote. Anyone who has not, does not necessarily forfeit that right based on that amendment. That is all I wanted to say.

The CHAIR: If no other member has a contribution, then I intend to put the question. For the benefit of newer members, whilst the minister moved that the council does not insist on its amendments, in the Legislative Council the Chair, or in my capacity as President, I always put the question in the positive. The question I will be putting is that the amendments be insisted on. So if you wish to insist on the amendments, that is, that the Legislative Council view holds, as opposed to the House of Assembly, you vote in the positive, and if you do not wish for them to be insisted on, you vote no. I will put the question that the amendments be insisted on.

Ayes 12

Noes 9

Majority 3

The PRESIDENT: I remind members that they should be sitting in their own seats during a division.