HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (APPLICATION OF TRUTH IN SENTENCING) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:04): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Correctional Services Act. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On 19 November 1991, Shane Andrews was convicted of the murder of Mr Brian Lyden. Andrews was found by a jury to have shot Mr Lyden (who had formed a relationship with Andrews' estranged wife) with a rifle outside the Aberfoyle Park Primary School. Justice Cox sentenced Andrews to life imprisonment with a nonparole period of 23 years. When the Statutes Amendment (Truth in Sentencing) Act 1994 was proclaimed, that nonparole period was recalculated, in accordance with the act, to 14 years, 11 months and 20 days.

So, what happened was that the truth in sentencing legislation of the Liberal government, with which the Labor opposition agreed in 1994, was passed, with disagreement about only one clause, and that was the Liberal government's proposal to give all existing prisoners all the remissions they could have expected to have earned in the course of their term of imprisonment up front and, therefore, their nonparole periods were recalculated and reduced. Labor opposed that aspect of the bill.

On 13 February 2006, the recalculated nonparole period expired. Andrews has applied for parole three times and has been refused each time. Andrews has taken legal action against the state of South Australia. He argues that he is entitled to parole under the act as it stood at the date on which he was sentenced.

When Andrews was first sentenced in 1991, the Correctional Services Act 1982 provided for automatic release on parole at the expiry of a prisoner's nonparole period. The Parole Board had a discretion to impose conditions on release and, for prisoners serving a life sentence, was required to make a recommendation to the Governor about how long the parole period should extend for: a period between three and 10 years. Assuming that the conditions of parole were agreed by the prisoner, neither the Parole Board nor the Governor had a discretion to refuse release on parole.

This regime occasioned controversy. In the early 1990s, there was a concerted move to amend the law to provide for truth in sentencing across Australia. In 1994, as part of the truth in sentencing reforms, the Correctional Services Act was amended by the Statutes Amendment (Truth in Sentencing) Act 1994.

One major change brought in by that amending act was abolition of automatic parole for sentences above five years. So, at the expiry of a nonparole period, a prisoner became entitled to apply to the Parole Board for release. In the case of prisoners serving life sentences, the board could only recommend release to the Governor.

Andrews has sued the state of South Australia. He argues that section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915, which effectively enacts the common law presumption against retrospective operation, applies to the truth in sentencing act so that, in accordance with the law as it stood in 1991, the Parole Board now has no discretionary power to refuse his release. Section 16(1)(d) of the Acts Interpretation Act provides:

Unless the contrary intention appears,...[an] amendment...does not affect any...penalty...or punishment...imposed, prior to the...amendment.

The Andrews case was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Duggan, Anderson and David, on 15 July 2008. The decision has been reserved.

In 1991 section 66(1) of the Correctional Services Act 1982 stated that the Parole Board was obliged to order the release of any prisoner whose nonparole period had expired before 30 days had elapsed after that expiry so long as the prisoner had agreed to the conditions, if any, proposed to him or her for parole. Any detention after that 30-day period was unlawful and could base an action for false imprisonment.

On 1 August 1994 the Statutes Amendment (Truth in Sentencing) Act 1994 came into force. It amended the Correctional Services Act 1982. Section 11 of the amending act repealed sections 66 and 67 of the act and replaced them with new sections. The effect of the amendments was that the system of automatic parole was left for sentences of less than five years, calculated according to the amending act, but that for prisoners serving life sentences or any other sentence of more than five years, that expectation was abolished. The act now provided (by section 67(5)) that a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment would apply for parole not more than six months before the nonparole period expired, if there were one, that the board had a discretion whether to recommend parole and, if it did recommend parole for a lifer, release was subject to the overriding discretion of the Governor.

This was a law proposed by the parliamentary Liberal Party. It was moved in this place, as I recall, by the then correctional services minister, the Hon. Wayne Matthew, and in another place by the Attorney-General of blessed memory, the Hon. K.T. Griffin. The central purpose of the amending act was to abolish the system of automatic remissions. As a member in the house at the time who handled the bill for the opposition, I can corroborate that that was the understanding of all of us. The idea was that individual prisoners already in prison were not harmed. The act had a transitional provision that said:

A sentence of imprisonment imposed before the commencement of this act and a nonparole period imposed before the commencement of this act are, on the commencement of this act, reduced by the number of days of remission credited to the prisoner (section 20(a)).

This provision made it clear that the parliament intended that, but for the reduction of nonparole periods by remission credits, prisoners seeking parole after the commencement of the amendments were to be dealt with in accordance with the new scheme provided for by the act. Indeed, as already noted, Andrews' nonparole period was recalculated and reduced in accordance with the act that he now claims did not apply to him.

I recall moving an amendment against this provision, but I was not successful. On party lines the Liberal government prevailed and automatic remissions remain to be credited to existing prisoners and Andrews, as an existing prisoner, took the benefit of that Liberal Party initiative. Otherwise, he would not yet have served his nonparole period as imposed by the trial judge. The intentions of the government and the parliament are equally apparent from Hansard. The second reading explanation of minister Matthews says:

All prisoners will no longer be automatically released by the Parole Board at the end of their nonparole periods...Prisoners serving a sentence of five years or more will have to apply to the Parole Board for release at the expiration of their nonparole period.

And, he said:

The government believes that it would be undesirable for there to be two groups of prisoners: pre-amendment prisoners who continue to be eligible for remissions; and, post-amendment prisoners not being eligible for remissions.

He continued:

The retention of the two systems would be particularly confusing if a prisoner was serving a sentence under both the old and the new system. A dual system would have to be maintained until the prisoner with the longest remaining nonparole period is discharged on parole.

The question of the rights of pre-amendment prisoners was examined by Justice Lander in the case of Summers v Frances Nelson QC and Others on 23 December 1994. Summers made the same argument that Andrews is now making. It was rejected. One of the most telling reasons was that at the time the amending act was passed the prisoner had accrued no right to release at all, merely an expectation that there would be a right once the nonparole period had expired—which it had not. The decision was not appealed nor has it been challenged before now. The government has relied in good faith on the decision of Justice Lander ever since.

The government is of the opinion that Andrews is wrong in law, wrong in policy and wrong as a matter of principle. There are substantial reasons for that position which I have set out above. The bill is not an admission that the government's legal position is wrong or even weak—and that applies to the Brown Government as much as it applies to the Rann government.

The current assessment is that the government's legal position is strong. The bill is being introduced as insurance in case the worst happens. Furthermore, the government is in a strong moral position. It has relied in good faith upon a decision of the Supreme Court that has gone unchallenged for 14 years. It is entitled to do so.

The consequences of losing the argument will be dramatic. Currently, there are 20 prisoners who were sentenced before 1994 whose nonparole period has expired. If Andrews' argument is correct then these prisoners would be entitled to automatic release. Given that all these prisoners are serving sentences of at least 14 years all their crimes are very serious.

In addition, these prisoners, and many others who were not granted immediate parole after the commencement of the amending act in 1994, may be entitled to compensation for unlawful imprisonment. Further consideration is being given to a rough quantum of potential damage. On a very preliminary basis it appears that this may run into many millions of dollars. These consequences are not tolerable for the public or the government.

It should be noted that if Andrews gets his judgment before the bill comes into operation that judgment will stand, but the effect of the bill is to forestall any pending judgment or order. The bill will also prevent any further applications or claims when it comes into operation. The bill will come into force upon assent. I commend the bill to members. I seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Correctional Services Act 1982

3—Insertion of Schedule 1

This clause inserts new Schedule 1.

Schedule 1—Application of Truth in Sentencing Act amendments

Clause 1 sets out definitions for the purposes of the measure.

Clause 2(1) provides that the amendments to the Correctional Services Act 1982 provided for by the Statutes Amendment (Truth in Sentencing) Act 1994 apply, and have always applied, in respect of all prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment immediately before the commencement of those amendments regardless of when the prisoners were sentenced.

Clause 2(2) provides that it follows that anything done or omitted to have been done in relation to such prisoners before the commencement of this clause on the basis referred to in subclause (1) has been, and has always been, validly done or omitted to have been done.

Clause 2(3) provides that this clause affects rights and liabilities arising between parties to proceedings initiated before the commencement of this clause to the extent to which those rights and liabilities arise from, or are affected by, an act or omission referred to in subclause (2); but does not affect any such rights or liabilities arising between parties to proceedings heard and finally determined before the commencement of this clause.

Clause 2(4) provides that nothing in this clause affects the operation of a subsequent amending Act which will have effect according to its terms.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:18): I will be the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to this bill. The opposition will be supporting the bill. I have read Hansard in relation to debate on the 1994 bill, and I was interested in the comments that the Attorney-General made at that time as the opposition spokesperson. They were not entirely favourable to the bill, as it happens. Nevertheless, we do recognise the need and, indeed, the urgency attaching to the legislation which the government has introduced this morning. I thank the Attorney-General and officers of the Attorney-General's Department and the Attorney-General's own office for their briefings on the matter.

It should not be necessary to have this legislation because, when one reads the Hansard in relation to the original truth in sentencing bill that was passed and became the act in 1994, it is obvious that the parliament was expressing a clear intention in relation to two particular things which were outlined by the then attorney-general in his speech. The predominant thing was to meet the community's expectation that, when a judge sentences someone to a term of imprisonment and sets a nonparole period, that person will, indeed, serve that nonparole period in prison.

Until this legislation was passed in the early 1990s, many people were released from prison a significant amount of time before the expiry of the nonparole period. Indeed, I think that Lorraine Rosenberg in her contribution on the matter referred to a case that had been dealt with recently where someone was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a nonparole period of a number of years (I think five years, or something like that), and they were out in eight months. Mrs Rosenberg, the then member for Kaurna, said in her speech:

There is a clear...expectation that a five-year sentence will mean just that. If a person is given a sentence of five years, the community expects that person to be behind bars paying a price to society for five years and not to be out in eight months, as in a recent case.

I can only presume from her comments that, in fact, she was leaving out that intermediate step of a five-year sentence and a certain nonparole period, because I really doubt that, unless a nonparole period was set as low as that, someone sentenced to five years would have been out in eight months unless there was, say, a 1½ or a two-year nonparole period. That was the primary intention of this legislation when it was originally passed; that when a judge sentenced someone to a term of imprisonment and then determined what the nonparole period should be, the community expectation that the person would then serve their nonparole period would be met.

I am still a little puzzled as to why, with respect to that aspect, we then went through the process of dealing with the prisoners who were then in prison and said, 'We are now going to adjust your sentence and your nonparole period.' To me, it would have made more sense to leave that aspect alone and not have a transitional provision for that aspect. Nevertheless, that was what the parliament of the day did: it put in place this review of all the prisoners who had already been sentenced and were serving their term.

I think the Attorney in his contribution referred to it as being prospective remissions that the powers that be went through for each of the prisoners who were already in there to say, 'Had we not passed this legislation, you would have had an expectation that you would be given remissions amounting to this, so we will now give you those remissions.' Therefore, in the case of Mr Andrews, his sentence was reduced from some 23 years to 14 years and 11 months, I think it was. It surprises me that they went through that process, but that was what they did.

I also agree with another aspect of the comments made by the Attorney in his contribution on the earlier occasion. In my view, it would have made more sense to have a system all along that said, 'Yes, you can earn remissions but you have to earn those remissions; they are not just going to be granted automatically.' To some extent, they were simply granted automatically under our previous system. As I said, I will come back to what the Attorney said on this bill, but that was the first aspect of the original legislation.

The other aspect was the idea of people being entitled to automatic release when they had served their nonparole period, with or without remissions. Even if they behaved really badly and did not have any remissions, if they were sentenced to 15 years, for example, with a 10-year nonparole period, once they reached that 10 years they had an automatic entitlement to release. The only function of the Parole Board was to determine what the conditions of that release might be, but it had no power to prevent the person from being released.

I would suggest that they were two significant shortcomings in our corrections and sentencing system. I note that both sides did support the changes when they were brought in and the Attorney, as usual, took considerable delight in criticising the Democrats in the other place at the time of his contribution because he assumed that, on law and order issues in this state, largely, it was Liberal and Labor versus the Democrats at that time.

The change brought about in relation to the issue of the nonparole period was to say, 'From now on, you will serve your nonparole period. You will not be entitled to automatic release at the time of your reaching the end of that nonparole period, but you will have to apply to the Parole Board and satisfy them that you should be released on whatever conditions.' Their role expanded from simply setting the conditions of an automatic release to making the determination or, indeed, the recommendation as to whether someone should be granted parole.

I think that is a critical thing to understand in relation to the case of Mr Andrews, because he has now put the argument to say that part was not retrospective. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the benefit of the reduced remissions that the first part of the legislation provided so that his sentence went, as I said, from about 23 years to 14 (or thereabouts), but he does not want the retrospectivity in respect of that aspect; that is, Mr Andrews says, 'Once I have reached the end of my nonparole period, I now want to argue that I am entitled to automatic release, subject to conditions that might be imposed.'

Indeed, he wants to argue that, since February 2006, he has been entitled to release. The argument that he is putting, as I understand it and as the Attorney said, is based on the Acts Interpretation Act, which basically presumes, in the absence of a clear statement to the contrary, non-retrospectivity. He is arguing that the retrospective aspect, so far as it related to his remissions is fine, but retrospective operations so far as it relates to his non-release under the new regime is not fine. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the prospect of not just Mr Andrews but potentially any number of other people who would be in the same situation, if he is successful, then also arguing that they are also entitled to release.

I do understand the urgency of the situation, given that the matter has now been heard, and I also fully support the intention because, in my view, this legislation simply clarifies and confirms the original position of the parliament and, indeed, the then Liberal government when the legislation was originally introduced. About a week ago in The Advertiser, people may have seen an article headed 'Freedom hinges on appeal by killer'. The information is already out there that Mr Andrews has put his case and that we are awaiting the decision.

I refer to some of the things the Attorney said in his contribution on the original legislation. At the outset, he says that the opposition (which he then represented) will be supporting this bill but will be making some criticisms of it in committee. He then goes to on to put the argument and says, 'I am not an uncritical admirer of the bill.' He puts the argument that the government, instead of doing what it is doing, should be following a different report and moving towards home detention and so on. In fact, he seems to be implicitly criticising the fact that the government of the day was putting more people in prison, which I find an interesting criticism, given that every chance the Attorney gets now, he bleats about how many more people he has put in prison.

I do find it interesting to read what he said, although to be fair to the minister, he did say 'My sympathies are with the minister.' In his second reading explanation, the now Attorney-General stated:

So, as of the proclamation of this bill, all prisoners in South Australian gaols will receive full remission on the rest of their sentence—prospective remission—and they will get it without any of the good behaviour or discipline that would have been required of them to earn those remissions in the future.

It is interesting that he does not then seem to go on to support the idea that I did think would be reasonable, and that is that, if remissions were available, they should be available as the result of positive earning rather than simply behaving. Indeed, in the second reading explanation he went on to say that the remissions are:

... an important tool for maintaining good behaviour in our prisons. I am not saying that it is as effective as it might be ...

He then went on to say that the system of remissions can take some credit for the fact that there had not been any riots, and so on. He further stated:

With remissions abolished, how do we give prisoners an incentive to behave in an orderly way in prisons?...I confidently predict that we will have an upsurge in disorder in prisons as a consequence of this bill.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How wrong could I be?

Mrs REDMOND: I do suggest that the Attorney was indeed—and he is sitting here now—admitting that he was terribly wrong about that suggestion: that we were going to suddenly have riots on our hands because people were no longer going to receive automatic remissions. At the end of his speech, the Attorney said:

I support the Statutes Amendment (Truth in Sentencing) Bill because the Liberal Party has a mandate for it, and however misguided its provisions the minister's heart is in the right place.

I put those comments of the Attorney on the record, but that said, putting aside whatever misgivings he might have had and whatever suggestion he might have had that we were suddenly going to have riots in our prisons because we were not granting automatic remissions, the fact remains that we do have a very serious issue before us today. The issue is one which the Liberal Party has considered carefully and reached the conclusion that, indeed, the intention of the government is to clarify something that everyone had understood had been clarified (at least since the decision of Lander J some 10 years ago), that the intention was that the two provisions of the bill—that is the removal of automatic remissions and the removal of the automatic right to parole once one had reached the end of a nonparole period—were both to apply to all the sentencing which occurred after the bill came into operation, but also to apply to the people who were already serving their sentences when the bill came into operation.

I make one minor correction to my comments, and that is that I neglected to say that, when we changed that provision about the automatic entitlement to parole, we did not remove it for those serving sentences of up to five years. That is as the situation remains at the moment. We left that in place so that those with a sentence of less than five years who have a nonparole period will automatically be entitled to their parole, subject to the conditions that the Parole Board imposes. But in the case of all other prisoners, and it is really the very serious prisoners—and those are the ones that we are concerned about today—those people are now subject to only being able to apply for parole and will not necessarily be granted it.

I think that there is a community expectation that the government will ensure that the Parole Board, if it makes a recommendation that someone should not be released from prison once they have reached their nonparole period, will not be recommending their release and that people will not be released into the community unless the Parole Board considers that it is appropriate for them to be so released. With those few comments I indicate, once again, the intention of the opposition to support this bill and to assist, so far as it can, in its speedy passage through the house.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:34): I am speaking in relation to the government's proposal to amend the Correctional Services Act in respect of parole for long-term prisoners. The legislation arises because one particular prisoner, Mr Shane Andrews, has taken a case before the Supreme Court in relation to his parole. He says that the truth in sentencing legislation of 1994 should not be retrospective and, if that was the case, he should have been released automatically. That relates to the law as it was before the 1994 legislation came into effect. The Attorney-General draws on the emotional argument that, if the legislation were not to proceed and the Supreme Court were to decide against the State of South Australia, there would be a number of prisoners serving long sentences who would be released and perhaps entitled to damages for unlawful imprisonment as well.

What is most regrettable in the debate is the disregard for the principle that we should be reluctant to interfere with court decisions while the court is itself considering judgment in the matter. This is a case where Mr Andrews has taken his case to the court, the arguments have been put by him and on behalf of the State of South Australia and, while judgment is being considered, the Attorney-General would have the parliament cut the ground from under the court's feet with this legislation.

The principle is a significant one, and this parliament should be extremely reluctant to intervene in court decisions, particularly once the arguments of both sides have closed. If there was a time for this legislation, it was as soon as Mr Andrews came forward with his claim that the 1994 legislation did not apply to him. Then, at least, it would have been more principled for the government to come along and say that it is not a matter for the courts: it is a matter of clarifying the intention of parliament.

The second matter I want to address is what I consider the most significant principle in relation to truth in sentencing, and that is the maintenance of the ability of our senior politicians to decide whether or not people should be in gaol. I think the time for politicians to decide on people's liberty is overdue for abolition. It is a relic of colonial days when governors had the power to decide whether people should go to the gallows or be reprieved. As I understand it, it has been a right of the executive, through the Governor (abolished in other states), and I believe that the Correctional Services Act as it relates to the parole provisions should be amended so that decisions of the Parole Board stand.

The Parole Board has to make decisions based on such matters as the gravity of the offence committed by the offender, the behaviour of the prisoner while in prison, or the behaviour of the prisoner during previous time spent on parole. The Parole Board also receives, almost as a matter of course, reports on the psychological and medical background of the prisoner. In all, the board gathers as much information as it can to determine whether the prisoner is going to be a useful, or at least responsible, member of society upon release. The Parole Board then makes a reasonable decision.

In the case of those serving sentences of life imprisonment, the board may only recommend to the Governor release of a prisoner, and it is this power that I find archaic. I find that the board, being a responsible creation of the parliament with the very purpose of making reasonable decisions about people's liberty, ought to be the final arbiter of that question. I do not think it should be left to senior politicians as to whether or not we spend time in gaol. So, if we want real truth in sentencing, that refers to all questions of liberty being based on reason and reasonable decisions based on all the available facts. In relation to parole, that means the Parole Board making the final decision, not our senior politicians. Frankly, I do not trust Mr Rann or Mr Atkinson to decide whether or not I spend another day in prison. In relation to the legislation before us—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Mitchell is referring to the Premier and me by our surnames and not by our title in the house.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. The member for Mitchell.

Mr HANNA: The Attorney-General has won the day with his point of order, so I conclude my remarks.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:41): I wish to talk only briefly about this bill. It is an important bill, and I recognise that it is an example of where the parliament is reacting quite quickly to an issue that is important to society. I commend all involved. I particularly thank the shadow minister for providing a very detailed and fair briefing paper on this bill. It was discussed only quite recently within the opposition and, I think it is fair to say, there was unanimous support that the bill should be supported. I do not profess to understand all pieces of legislation that come before parliament; I do rely upon others to inform me of those issues.

However, in this case I think my understanding of the issues involved come from the expectations of people in the community with whom I talk, and those people quite clearly want to ensure that, when a crime is committed and charges are laid, the matter is prosecuted successfully before a magistrate or a judge and a sentence is imposed, that sentence is fulfilled. I respect the fact that there are several levels of crime, and some are more serious than others. However, as I understand it, the issue we are talking about here relates to the more serious end of crime, and it is important that a sentence should be implemented. There should not be an expectation that a non-parole period will automatically be granted.

As other speakers have noted, I think it is important that, when someone is convicted and found guilty of a crime, part of a person's sentence include rehabilitation so that they can come back out into the community at a time the Parole Board deems suitable. I put my complete trust in the Parole Board as being the adjudicator in these matters, because the members of the Parole Board are the people most aware of all the issues involved. I think it is important that the Parole Board does have flexibility. In this case it still means that an application can be lodged, as I understand it, before the Parole Board but that, if in the judgment of the Parole Board the person is not deemed fit to be released into the wider community, that person should remain in custody and continue with their sentence, and I support that.

People in the communities which I represent have a great frustration with the fact that they see crimes of all levels committed, and they do not think the sentence necessarily reflects the crime that was committed. Society needs to know that we put laws in place to protect people; and, clearly, we do that. Governments of all persuasions and colours need to ensure that the laws that are implemented and the basis upon which the laws are framed reflects the needs of society to live in a safe environment whereby if you do the right thing you run no risk, but if you do the wrong thing and if you are charged and found guilty you must respect the fact that, as a result, there will be consequences.

I have told my children ever since they were young that there is either a positive or a negative reaction depending on whatever action they take. This matter is another example of that. As I understand it, in this case, presumably in a fit of rage, a chap murdered the lover of his estranged wife. We are using that case as the basis for this discussion, but I have no doubt from the information provided by the shadow minister that potentially there are another 19 prisoners who could equally seek some form of exemption and automatic release from the gaol system. I do not support that. I think it is important that the legislation is there, so that when a sentence is imposed (unless a person found guilty of a crime can prove that, upon release, they will become a productive member of society) a guilty person should fulfil their full sentence.

I think this is a positive step, and I commend the Attorney for introducing the legislation. I commend the shadow attorney-general for her presentation to the shadow cabinet and, indeed, to our party room about the importance of this legislation. Importantly, I think this legislation also reflects society's expectations. We know there are completely unscrupulous people out there who commit horrible crimes, and we need to ensure that legislation is in place to make certain that those people serve their full sentence, and that is what the people we represent expect. I do not very often talk about serious matters such as this because I do not necessarily feel qualified to do so. However, people in the communities I serve talk to me about the fact that they want to ensure that they are safe, and they see that the message this sort of legislation sends is an important aspect to ensuring their safety because it means that people will have to serve out their full sentence. I commend the legislation, and I trust that it has a swift passage through the house.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:46): Along with my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I support the bill. This is sensible legislation, which seeks to fix an error in the current act. Like the member for Goyder, I am no expert in these matters, but decisions have been made by others who do have the knowledge about the justice system's ability to put people in prison. The fact is that there are people amongst us who commit these horrendous crimes, and they deserve to be sent to prison and to stay there for a long time. If we have to fix up legislation in this place to ensure that those prisoners stay there for a reasonable time, I have no problem in supporting it.

As I understand it, the intent and the automatic remissions are the areas where amendments are required, and I agree with those who have stated that the Parole Board has the information, the skills and the necessary judgment to make good decisions about what may or may not happen in relation to the individual cases that come before it, and I have confidence in the Parole Board to do that.

I also thank my colleague the member for Heysen for the very informative and useful briefing she gave us on this matter. It is no secret that we had a good discussion about the matter, and the fact that the Liberal Party has chosen to support this legislation introduced by the government as it stands is largely due to the excellent presentation put to us by the shadow attorney-general.

The other change introduced in the truth and sentencing legislation was that all prisoners who reached the end of their nonparole period were automatically entitled to parole. The 1994 act changed that so that automatic parole was available only to prisoners sentenced to five years or less; in other cases, the prisoner had to apply for parole and may or may not have been successful. Mr Andrews, the person in question at the moment, is challenging this, and I understand that the judges are making their decision and will announce that decision in due course. I understand also that this legislation must pass through this parliament this week to ensure that, if Mr Andrew is somehow or other granted release from the South Australian prison system, that does not happen, and I support that. If the state loses, Mr Andrews will be out the door, and he would be entitled to apply for compensation dating back to February 2006. He is a villain who has committed an extremely serious offence, and I see no reason he should be walking the streets of South Australia or Australia, or anywhere else for that matter, and he should stay where he is for a substantial period of time. I also understand that another 20 prisoners are waiting on Mr Andrews' case and, in the event that he wins his case and is released, they would immediately go through the process—

An honourable member: They will be waiting a long time.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, they may well do. The fact is that they would be released, and we cannot have that happen. I do not think anyone in this place would support von Einem being able to walk out the door. In fact, it is my desire, quite frankly, that he rots in the place. I have no hesitation in supporting the bill, and I thank the house for the opportunity to speak on it. Like the member for Goyder, we have always raised our children to know right from wrong. All of us have to continue to do that. I know, Mr Speaker, that you have an increasing number of people to whom you will have to teach the difference between right and wrong, and you will be very busy for a long time. I thank members once again, and I support the bill.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:50): I will make some brief comments in support of the bill. I think any fair-minded person would realise that this bill is simply implementing the intent of the original bill. I would also like to take a moment to thank the member for Heysen. I certainly look forward to the day when she becomes the chief lawmaker in this state, when we again put back some credibility into that position in South Australia, with someone who has actually practised law and also run a business. It would be great to have someone in that position making decisions about our future.

I stand here in support of the bill. Just remember, this is all about individual responsibility. This is a man who was convicted of a heinous crime for which he was found guilty. I believe he was standing at the victim's place of abode with the gun ready to commit the act. It was contemplated and well thought out. It is also obvious that he had some people who thought about ways to find loopholes in this legislation.

Traditionally, I am not in favour of anything that is retrospective, but this simply clears up the original intent of a bill which was introduced some 15 years ago. I am very happy as a libertarian and someone who stands for individual responsibility to stand here and support the bill this morning.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:52): I thank members for their cooperation in the dispatch of this business. I want to make the point again that the government does not say it is correcting an error—we disagree with the member for Finniss to that extent. We say there is no error but we are acting out—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen took the words out of my mouth. Thank you for completing my sentences; you so often do.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:53): I would like to make one very brief comment that I neglected to traverse in my earlier comments on the second reading; that is, it is apparent to me that Mr Andrews reached his nonparole period in February 2006, which was cut down with remissions to 14 years and 11 months, or whatever. Whilst I have not investigated his case in particular, I would have no doubt that, having reached his nonparole period at that point, he has applied for parole unsuccessfully. If the parole board thinks that he is not fit to be released into the community at this stage, that indicates to me why we would not like to have him just automatically released if nothing was done. I just wanted to add that to my earlier comments.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT