HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROBINSON, MR S.A.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Correctional Services. Did the minister provide the public with the correct information when he told radio listeners this morning that the Parole Board had failed to act on every single occasion that Shane Andrew Robinson failed a drug test?

This morning on radio station FIVEaa the minister said that, in relation to Shane Andrew Robinson's five failed drug tests between December 2007 in June 2009, 'On every single occasion the Parole Board could have issued a warrant they didn't.' Earlier, on ABC Radio, Parole Board chair, Frances Nelson QC, said that Robinson had been returned to custody at least once since being paroled in December 2007 and that she had personally authorised the warrant on 22 June this year. Ms Nelson also said that after his release he was drug tested on 28 February 2008, returning a positive result to cannabis, and hence the board issued a warrant and brought him back into custody.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (14:33): Mr Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The advice from the Department for Correctional Services is that Shane Andrew Robinson was drug tested both in prison and outside prison. That is to say, he was tested in prison for drugs on eight occasions—that is our advice—and that on three of those eight occasions he failed. Indeed, if we put together all the drug tests, we are informed by the Department for Correctional Services that he had in his urine heavy painkillers that were not prescribed, methamphetamines, amphetamines and cannabis.

I am not saying that that combination was found on every occasion. What we are advised is that over the period he was tested that range of drugs was found in his system. He was tested eight times in prison, and three times he failed. Indeed, Correctional Services did what is a normal response to someone in the pre-release cottages who fails a drug test: he was taken back into the main body of Yatala Prison. I am further advised by the Department for Correctional Services that he was incarcerated in G Division—the high security division—and subsequent to that he went to Port Augusta Prison. But, from there he was paroled by the Parole Board even though, clearly, the rehabilitation courses he had undertaken, regarding drug and alcohol abuse, had not had the desired effect.

Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition's first argument on this was that there were not sufficient rehabilitation programs in our prisons, but it turns out, contrary to what the opposition leader said, that Shane Andrew Robinson was given a whole battery of rehabilitative programs. He was in the pre-release cottages and was given work release, he was given anger management courses, he was given drug and alcohol courses, he was given victim awareness courses, and we all now know what the fruit of those rehabilitative programs was: he went on a rampage around Yunta. Moving to the second sequence of tests—

Mr Williams: Why was he in the pre-release cottages?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: He was in the pre-release cottages because that is the trajectory through which prisoners go; that is to say—

Mr Williams: You reckon he should never have been released.

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, because he failed his drug tests, and the Department for Correctional Services expressed its judgment on that failure of drug tests by putting him back in the mainstream prison system where the government—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! If the member for MacKillop has a question, I am more than happy to give him the call.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Rann government believes that Shane Andrew Robinson should have stayed in the mainstream prison system. The opposition and the opposition leader, in particular, were happy for him to be released, and that is the difference between the government and the opposition. On the question—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —of the five drug tests when Shane Andrew Robinson was on parole, we are advised by the Department for Correctional Services that five drug tests were done after the Parole Board released Shane Andrew Robinson into society and that he failed every one—each and every one of those drug tests. The inference this government draws from those test results is that he should have been returned to prison. That is the inference we draw, and we make no apology for it. At the moment, there is a disagreement about the substratum of fact between the Department for Correctional Services, on one side—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —and the head of the Parole Board, Frances Nelson. That will be resolved in due course because truth will out. I hope that the media and the opposition in this state hold Ms Nelson to the same standards they hold the minister.

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