HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Ministerial Statement

PORT AUGUSTA PRISON

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Gambling, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:05): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As members are aware, there was a prisoner-led riot at Port Augusta Prison in October last year. It involved more than 30 prisoners who did extensive damage to two units of the high security Bluebush wing. Thanks to the professional, sensible and patient approach of staff at Port Augusta Prison and the work of SA Police the disturbance was resolved peacefully and without any injury to staff or prisoners.

The two affected cell blocks, which together accommodate up to 92 prisoners, have now been repaired, and prisoners have returned to that accommodation. The disturbance resulted in $1 million damage to officer stations (including computers and furniture), windows, toilet bowls, televisions, security cameras, intercoms, cabling and roofing.

Repairs were completed by professional tradespeople, with painting work within the cells completed by the prisoners. In addition, $500,000 of additional security upgrades are now being carried out, including installing extra razor wire on roofs, putting additional bars on outer windows, and upgrading windows and doors.

The former minister for correctional services, Carmel Zollo, gave in the other place earlier this year a comprehensive statement on the Department for Correctional Services' investigation. I refer members to that statement should they seek further information. In that statement the former minister outlined that an investigation by the Department for Correctional Services led to recommendations about how to further improve prison management and security procedures.

A committee comprised of managers, staff, union representatives and an Aboriginal representative is overseeing the implementation of those recommendations, including altering the prisoner mix, reviewing prisoners' services and refining emergency response procedures.

At the time of the riot, all prisoners accommodated in the damaged units of Bluebush wing were transferred to other secure facilities, including Mobilong, the Adelaide Remand Centre and Yatala Labour Prison, as well as other cell blocks at Port Augusta Prison.

The suspected instigators were relocated to G-Division of Yatala Labour Prison. To date, five prisoners suspected to be the ringleaders remain in that location, in the interests of good prison management and security.

I would like to take this chance to inform the house that there are two separate processes that are applied to deal with prisoners who engage in conduct such as a riot. One is a criminal process run external to the Department for Correctional Services. That process involves a police investigation that includes interviews and the collection of evidence. An assessment is then made by the police about what charges may be laid.

Depending on the severity of the charges recommended by the police, the police can either proceed through the courts, or, in the case of more serious charges, police can refer the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue. If criminal charges are pursued, the case will go before a court, like any other criminal case against any other member of the public.

The other process that is applied is an internal disciplinary process, which involves pursuing breaches by prisoners under the Correctional Services Act 1982. Under this process, a correctional services officer, acting as a prosecutor, appears before an independent visiting tribunal to make the department's case against a prisoner. The prisoner also appears before the tribunal. A single justice of the peace, appointed by the Governor under the Correctional Services Act 1982, presides over the proceedings.

Under the regulations of the Correctional Services Act the maximum prescribed penalty for a breach by a prisoner is $75. The department can also seek reimbursement for damages of up to $3,000 if specific damage can be attributed to a particular prisoner. The criminal process and the internal process are quite separate. Each process is independent of the other and they are not inter-reliant.

Following the October incident, the Department for Correctional Services pursued breaches of discipline against 26 prisoners under the Correctional Services Act, namely the offences of damaging department property and disturbing security and good order. In accordance with section 44 of the Correctional Services Act the matters were then referred to the independent visiting tribunal.

The chief executive of the Department for Correctional Services issued a clear direction to the general managers at each institution to formally charge prisoners with these breaches of discipline within the prescribed period of time of eight weeks from the date of the alleged breaches. The breaches were drawn up by responsible officers at Port Augusta Prison and then faxed to the general managers of the facilities that were holding the prisoners: Port Augusta, Mobilong, Adelaide Remand Centre and Yatala Labour Prison. Notices were served on the prisoners at Port Augusta, Mobilong and Adelaide Remand Centre on Friday 5 December 2008. This was the last day that such a notification could lawfully be served under the legislation.

At Yatala Labour Prison, the general manager failed to serve the notices on the prisoners held there until the following Monday. This meant that the notices were served one working day outside the prescribed time of eight weeks after the incident. These breaches were not pursued and could not have been lawfully pursued under the act. In February this year, the breaches that had been properly served on the prisoners at the other three facilities were withdrawn at the hearing of the independent visiting tribunal.

The prosecuting officer made this decision in consultation with the independent visiting tribunal. I am advised that the decision was based on a perceived difficulty in attributing specific damage or breaches to individual prisoners, as is required under the act.

The chief executive has expressed to me that he is deeply concerned about two aspects. Firstly, there appears to have been an inadequate understanding of the importance of serving notices on the Yatala Labour Prison offenders within a specified time and, secondly, there was inadequate consultation and consideration prior to the withdrawal of the breach proceedings given the gravity of the October incident.

The chief executive informs me that, when he became aware that the breach proceedings had been withdrawn and that notices were not served upon prisoners at Yatala Labour Prison within the prescribed time, he took swift action. The chief executive ordered an immediate investigation into the internal disciplinary processes after the October riot. As a result of that investigation, the Director of Custodial Services has completed a comprehensive, full-day education session with the state's eight prison general managers and some other senior managers.

This session covered topics such as the operation of the act, securing evidence, delegation of authority and proper processes for pursuing breaches under the act. Compliance with required processes is part of the performance management standards for general managers. A delegation schedule for general managers about their powers under sections 43 and 44 of the act has been developed and will be implemented soon.

This will mean that, in future, only the most senior prison managers can make decisions about issuing and withdrawing breach proceedings. The senior manager responsible for the failure to serve charges within the prescribed time frame at Yatala Labour Prison has been formally counselled by the Director of Custodial Services about his responsibilities. This constitutes a strong warning.

A performance review was also completed for the officer and this resulted in a direction for the manager to make an action plan for improvement. The prosecuting officer responsible for withdrawing the charges against prisoners who had been properly served with the breach notices was acting within his responsibilities and in accordance with procedures as they stood at the time.

I also wish to advise the house that a prisoner at Yatala contacted the office of the Ombudsman about a charge sheet being served on him on 8 December 2008—that is, past the prescribed time frame. The chief executive has provided a fulsome written response to the office of the Ombudsman. The Acting Ombudsman has made recommendations to review some departmental procedures. The chief executive has indicated his support for such a review and is working on implementing the Acting Ombudsman's recommendations.

I am deeply disappointed by the oversights that have resulted in no prisoners being pursued for serious safety and security breaches under the Correctional Services Act 1982 but, to put the matter in context, if the full extent of action possible under the act had been carried out, at best it would have resulted in a fine of $75 for the prisoners concerned.

For too long, maximum penalties under the Correctional Services Act have been insufficient and have not reflected community expectations. Many of the penalties that currently exist have not been amended since 1994.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is why I have introduced a bill to amend the Correctional Services Act 1982. Among the amendments is a proposal to increase penalties for prisoners were who breach prison rules and procedures.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise on a point of order. The minister has advised the house that he has already introduced this bill, therefore it is before the house. I do not think the ministerial statement can then argue why the bill is a good bill. It is sitting here as being distributed and he stated that he has already introduced it.

The SPEAKER: I understand the bill to do what the minister is referring to was introduced before the luncheon break, so the minister cannot anticipate debate by referring to the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that members opposite are trying to impress today. I know there is plenty on after question time, so I am sure there will be plenty points of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that South Australia Police have now finalised their investigations into last year's riot and have provided a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The government awaits the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in regard to criminal charges.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know the member for MacKillop is keen to impress today—very keen to impress today. I intend to monitor, through the chief executive, both the implementation of further improvements to Port Augusta Prison's operations and the action taken in response to the department and the Ombudsman's recommendations on improving internal prisoner disciplinary positions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. I seek that the minister table the report which is identified on page 2 of the statement, which he has referred to in the ministerial statement and outlined, selectively, a number of recommendations. I ask that he table that report from the department.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

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