Treatment of Prisoners

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:21): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of the Attorney-General regarding the treatment of prisoners in South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Last week, it was reported that Mr Aaron Daniele was awarded some $107,500 after he sued the state government for breaching its duty of care towards him. Apparently he had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after being incarcerated in Yatala's G Division in Northfield in 2017. My questions to the attorney are:

1. Does the case presented by Mr Daniele in claiming such a significant amount of money from the state government for apparent stress caused by his incarceration create a precedent where any past or indeed current prisoner of Yatala's G Division may also be suitable for such a claim?

2. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that this is the best use of $107,500 of South Australian taxpayers' funds?

The Attorney may want to take the next one on notice:

3. How many payments have been made to prisoners under these same provisions in the last two years?

4. Will the state government assist the victims of Mr Daniele's crimes in accessing at least some of this payment as potential partial compensation for their suffering as a result of his crimes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will have to refer some of that to the corrections minister, who will have better details than me about matters that affect prisoners. I will take it partially on notice, but I will say that every claim that is made in civil litigation turns on the very specific facts of that claim. One claim does not set a precedent for generalised future claims, given they all turn on individual facts. I am happy to consult with my colleague the minister for corrections to answer the question the honourable member has asked about whether there are figures about any other such matters.

In relation to victims of crime, generally where someone qualifies for a victims of crime payment what usually happens is that the state, out of the Victims of Crime Fund—which is made up from the levies that are applied when someone is convicted of an offence or put onto an expiation notice—the victims of crime and sometimes family members are awarded payments from that fund and then the state has a right to recover, in the general course of things, from the offender.

In that respect, I am happy to have a look at this individual case because it may be possible that with that right of the state to recover from the offender that is possible, but I will have to get some advice for the honourable member on that.