HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2009. Page 4161.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:48): The subject that I was canvassing at the time of the adjournment was the chief executive's expanded power, which is proposed in this bill, to deal with methods of punishment and penalty for prisoners. Currently, the minister must consider all placements of a prisoner into a management cell, that they be separated from all other prisoners. This is often done for less than two or three days as part of the management of the prison. It is this management tool that forms part of the expanded power of the chief executive to deal with prisoners in these circumstances.

The process, as I understand it, is that under our current legislation notice needs to be given to the minister for his or her approval when such instances are to occur. In reality, most often, the minister's approval is received after the period of management, that is, after separation from other prisoners has already occurred. It is a bit like shutting the gate after the sheep are out but, for practical purposes, I was briefed that that is what occurs.

The proposal in this bill is to enable the chief executive to have the power to confine a prisoner for up to five days, with some safeguards in the legislation against repeat periods. It is with those safeguards, and in view of the current situation as explained, that the opposition is prepared to support this aspect of the bill, although it initially caused some concern that this was an important tool in the management of prisoners in the prison.

However, the fact that it requires a process of notice and approval by the minister, albeit retrospectively, indicates the seriousness with which supervision and protection against this being abused in any way is treated; therefore, change needs to be considered very carefully. However, on balance, as I indicated, the opposition is prepared to accept this situation.

I always look at these things on the basis that one has to remove the person who currently holds the office, and to whom a certain privilege or power will be given, because it can be a particularly beguiling situation to think, 'I know the person who is in that position, and they are decent and appear to be carrying out their duties very well and therefore can be relied upon to act honourably and appropriately in their duties.'

I remind the house that, especially when we will be removing a check and balance against potential abuse of power or position, we have to make decisions based on the fact that we could have someone who ultimately takes up these positions (in this case, the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services) who may not have the same standards as the incumbent. As is often said, we have to make decisions based on the lowest common denominator.

The person who may occupy that office in the future cannot always be assumed to be of the same standard as the current occupant. I say that simply because we are removing a safeguard and, on balance, we think that is acceptable with the substitute safeguard of not having repeat periods. Some stakeholders whom we have consulted in this regard indicated some disquiet; however, on balance, the opposition supports the position.

There is the regulation amendment in respect of the property of prisoners. Currently, the regulations restrict personal effects to the value of $200 or to that which fits into a locker of a prescribed size under the legislation. This amendment allows regulations to be made and varied or changed from time to time to be more flexible to increase property retained for the prisoner.

One matter that was raised (I cannot immediately recall by whom) was the along the lines that this proposal was only really being put forward because corrections was sick of having to handle, store and deal with the property of prisoners. Presently, they have some duty to put it in some sort of storage or security, and they want to be relieved of that. That is not what I understood the briefing to suggest. I understood that it was to do the reverse, that is, it would enable the prisoner to have extra personal effects of a greater value. It would be logical to expect now that prisoners may—and certainly in the most recent time that I visited the prison—have a number of pieces of equipment (television, audio and video equipment) that enables them to have some entertainment in their residence, that these are of some significant value, and that we are really just keeping up with the times. If I am in error in that regard I would hope that the minister would clarify that in his response.

I refer to the penalties to punish prisoners. There are a number of amendments to increase penalties for those who misbehave in prison, for example, from $2,500 to $5,000 fines. I do not take issue with the fact that from time to time it is necessary and appropriate to review the level of fines, and, on assessment of what is being proposed here, the opposition accepts that that is appropriate. The minister goes on to say, in his second reading explanation:

Amendments are proposed to ensure that the behaviour of prisoners who breach prison rules can be adequately dealt with.

What I understand this to mean is that this could expand, not just the current fine or the withdrawal of privileges as a punishment, but that it could also include punishments by solitary confinement. I had some discussion with the chief executive about this and I think I made it fairly clear to him that I would be very concerned if, in fact, that was to be included in the regulations as an option. It is not in the bill—but if those words that I have just quoted in the contribution, on my discussion with the chief executive, were to enable that to happen within the regulations. This would not be the place, of course, to challenge if that was to occur because we do not have the regulations before us.

I would hope that, first, the minister, in his response, will make it absolutely clear, if it is not the case, that he will not be introducing any regulation which will include a power of exclusion, that is, placing a prisoner in solitary confinement, as a form of punishment executed by the Correctional Services chief executive officer, whoever that might be. If it is the intention of the government, or the minister, to enable this to be an option, then the government is on notice that we will be taking issue with this at the time of introduction of those regulations.

For the record, even judges in courts, and even the Attorney-General, do not have the power to exclude people by way of solitary confinement in a prison: they cannot attach it to a prison sentence. The Attorney, with all his powers, even on the bikies legislation, cannot order a period of solitary confinement. So, if we were to find that by regulation it was proposed that the chief executive officer was going to have power to do this as a form of punishment, then we would be very concerned. There is a whole history as to why this is inappropriate as an option, and it would be very concerning to the opposition if that were to occur.

Having said all that, I think it is important that I place on the record that one of the reasons that I was advised—I was the only one at the briefing—that it was necessary to have this as an option was because the usual sort of action in withdrawing of privileges has become more difficult to implement. An example that was given was withdrawing the privilege of access to a television. Now the use of a television is so run-of-the-mill and every prisoner has access to it, it is no longer a punishment to take away television time. I did not quite understand that explanation. I would have thought that, even if it has become a usual part of the household, even in a prison cell, it would still be a withdrawal of privilege.

I think in the absence of a television, particularly if there was no access to any other audio facility, it would be a pretty lonely place. Given the level of literacy in the prison population, simply to say that they could read a book is not necessarily a realistic option. I would have thought that the withdrawal of television would be a fairly severe penalty. However, I simply place on the record that that was the explanation given to me as to why that may need to be included in the regulation as an available tool in the tool bag, so to speak. That is what they often say now in relation to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Tool kit, isn't it?

Mr Hanna: Toolbox.

Ms CHAPMAN: Toolbox, tool kit? We want to know what was occurring in other jurisdictions in Australia—if that had been introduced anywhere as a means of punishment—and we want some explanation from the government as to why it should consider this to be justified before we will agree to it.

There was a removing of duplication in respect of prisoners being eligible for home detention. Certain prisoners are not eligible for home detention but amendments over the years have created some duplication. We understand this is an administrative amendment and will support it.

We have this issue of the private sector provider staff. The minister (not the Governor) is to appoint and revoke private service provider staff. Members will remember that some years ago, under a former government, private operators were allowed to contract with the government to operate prisons. I am not familiar enough in South Australia as to where they currently operate. I recall that an English company was introduced for the management of the prison in Mount Gambier. I understand it continues to manage that prison but I am not sure whether any other place of incarceration in South Australia is operated privately.

In any event, when it came into being, a condition was imposed in the legislation that was passed to facilitate this new form of management and the then Labor opposition required the imposition of a condition that Executive Council (effectively the Governor) would have to approve staff appointments. The selection was to have some management involvement, so it still involved the chief executive officer, but this was a separate requirement. Now it seems that the government wants to get rid of this condition.

I make the observation of how quickly things change when people change from one side of this house to the other. I was told at the briefing—and I think this was in the second reading contribution—that this requirement is administratively cumbersome. I think it was pretty obvious back at the time when the legislation was debated in another place that it was going to be administratively cumbersome. Nevertheless, that was the contribution made by the then Labor opposition and, sure enough, now that it is in government, it does not want it.

We do not have any issue with its being removed and that amendment being made. I suspect that some of my predecessors who suggested it would have been administratively cumbersome back then would have wanted to be here to see today's legislation and reform passed. The briefing also confirmed that the chief executive officer of the department, Mr Severin, had provided a presentation to OARS, ACOSS, the Victim Support Service, Prison Chaplaincy Services, Anglicare and the Salvation Army, the last of which provides significant support for prison housing. There was no objection to the matters raised.

Frances Nelson QC was consulted on the matter of amendment to parole. My understanding is that she was not consulted on other issues, but it is fair to say that a number of these other matters do not specifically lie within her area responsibility as chair of the Parole Board.

I would like to refer to the amendments that have been tabled. When we previously discussed this bill, the government had tabled a number of amendments. The opposition's shadow spokesperson, the member for Finniss, had conferred with the government on those amendments; I understand that they are in order, and the opposition will consent to the same.

Since that time I have received notice—via a press release today—than an amendment has been laid on the table by the member for Mitchell, and this amendment would have the effect of abolishing automatic parole for violent offenders—those people who are in prison as a result of being convicted of offences such as assault, stalking, leaving the scene of an accident, kidnapping, unlawful threats, home invasion and aggravated robbery. On viewing that amendment it seems that it is consistent with that announcement by the government. I am not sure whether there is provision, under the traffic offence legislation, to deal with leaving the scene of an accident, but in any event that is included in the press release.

The wording of the amendment is 'or for the purposes of escaping from the scene of the offence', which is a slightly different matter. It is not simply leaving the scene of an accident which, I think on anyone's interpretation, actually refers to leaving a traffic accident, which attracts a penalty. Of course, and as always, I am very confident in relying upon the parliamentary draftsman and not on whoever may have drafted the minister's press release, so I will take it that the member for Mitchell's amendment is the one upon which I should rely for that purpose. Thankfully, that is the one that will be before us for consideration.

Whilst the opposition has not met to consider this specific amendment, members would know that the Liberal Party's position—in fact, it was part of its 2006 election policy—is that all offenders, not just those involved in violent offences, who have been incarcerated—that is, had prison terms—for more than 12 months should appear before the Parole Board before release. The Liberal Party has for years been shouting that this is something that needs to be done, and there has been some support from the general community and from those who have a specific interest, including Frances Nelson QC, chair of the Parole Board, who has made a number of public statements about the need for many more offenders to appear before the board before release. However, the government's position has been to consistently deny that, and maintain that they only need to appear before the Parole Board if their sentence was five years.

Is it not incredible that, after two years of rampage in the streets, concern expressed in the media and situations where I think probably many of us will have had constituents expressing their concern for their own personal safety and that of members of their family and their property—for example, that their car might be stolen—and all sorts of issues like that, we now have an announcement today that, suddenly, automatic parole will be abolished for violent offenders.

Mr Hanna: They had to be forced into it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely. In anticipation of the amendment of the member for Mitchell, I congratulate him for what has been foreshadowed, and I note that it seems that the government has come kicking and screaming to the table. However, having done so, whilst we say it has not gone far enough, we welcome that component.

I have also had notice of further amendments that have been tabled as amendments Nos 113(3) and 113(4). I will await with interest and listen attentively to the minister's explanation for this, but my understanding is that the member for Mitchell's amendment will cover those who will in future be incarcerated and these two amendments will cover existing prisoners and that they will deal with two different transitional provisions. I suspect that may be for different acts, but I will have a quick look at it and, no doubt, the minister will explain that aspect. I have just received the approval of the shadow minister for corrections of the foreshadowed amendment No. 113(4).

I indicate that we will support the bill. Although I had canvassed that eager consideration be given by the minister for an inspector of prisons regime to be considered, I see that nothing has come forward. It is something on which the opposition has done some further work. We understand that the Western Australian model comes at a cost (at least, from its annual report) of some $2 million a year.

This team of visiting inspectors, under the Western Australian model, would replace the visiting inspectors that we have at the moment, which itself is under review in this bill. However, certainly, from the website information, a pretty healthy contingent of people work in this office: it has 17 full-time equivalent staff. In any event, it seems that they operated (according to their records) at a total cost of services at close to $2.5 million for the year ending 30 June 2008.

So, it certainly comes at a cost. The opposition will not be introducing amendments that seek the imposition of that, but it seems that we really need to look at strengthening that process rather than simply reviewing it on the basis that we are going to allow non-JPs to come into the voluntary service for that purpose. With those comments, I look forward to the matter moving into committee.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (16:15): The government is bringing in legislation to amend the Correctional Services Act; in other words, to do with prisons. I think a number of amendments are fairly inconsequential. I want to run through them briefly, then I will get to the punchline. The government claims there are various moves to make prisoners more accountable. In fact, this language means that it is increasing the penalties for some breaches of regulations by relatively minor amounts. There is also an increased penalty for people not answering a question of a parole officer and increased fines under the regulations generally.

The bill removes the Community Service Advisory Committee. It is hard for me to know just how valuable the input of that committee was. However, it would seem an undemocratic move. I think that most government departments—and I really am generalising here—could benefit from the input of suitably interested, qualified and experienced members of the community in terms of how the department runs, and correctional services is no exception. The difficulty is to find appropriate people who do not have a vested interest to serve on such committees. The bill enables the CEO of the department to approve short-term prisoner separations. I should explain: the term 'prisoner separations' really means solitary confinement. However, longer term confinement over five days will still require notification to the minister.

Now I think we get to the punchline. The legislation also transfers authority for appointing private prison staff from the Governor to the minister. There is an interesting little bit of history I can add to this one, because I was working as an adviser to Labor MPs when the private prison legislation went through, and I pointed out to the then shadow minister, the late Hon. Terry Roberts, the implications of the Liberal legislation of the day. It was obvious that there would need to be a series of publications on behalf of the Governor in the gazette to enable listed people to then perform prison staff duties and, indeed, this has been going on for years; that is, those names of relevant staff have to be published in the gazette.

Whether it simply escaped the attention of the shadow cabinet or whether there was a nice wink to what was going on, there was no substantial opposition. It could have been blocked in the upper house at that time, but I think some elements of the Labor Party were quite happy to have privatisation of the Mount Gambier prison, and so it happened. In any case, given that that is history now and it has been running as a private prison for all that time, if it is slightly easier and if it removes one extra little bit of workload from His Excellency the Governor, then, at this stage, there is no point opposing such a move.

There are a couple of other provisions, but I will not touch on them. However, a particular matter about which I am passionate and which I would like to raise at this stage is in relation to pets in prisons. I am in favour of pets in prisons. Current provisions in our legislation allow the manager of the prison to allow prisoners certain items—and this can include a little pet bird, for example—and that would apply under the amended legislation as well. As I am speaking, members are suggesting various animals that might be obtained by prisoners under this concept, but the practice has been to allow some prisoners to have pet birds.

I understand there needs to be a restriction here. It should not be a right of every prisoner to have a bird, but for those who are nearing release, perhaps for those who fulfil certain good behaviour requirements such as having attended appropriate rehabilitation programs, for those who have been drug free or for those who have behaved well in the prison environment, it would be a very good reward for prisoners who wanted to have such a creature to care for. One of the special and beautiful things about it is that it gives the prisoner some thing in the world to which they can emotionally commit. Some of these people have pretty barren lives emotionally, especially within prison itself, so to have a little creature to care for, I think, is a very important part of rehabilitation where it is appropriate for that particular prisoner.

I first came across this, in fact, when I was in South Africa. I was given the opportunity to tour Pollsmoor prison. For those interested, they might recall that this is the prison to which Nelson Mandela was transferred after he was taken off Robben Island. He was placed in Pollsmoor Maximum Security Prison prior to his release. Crime in South Africa runs roughly at about 100 times the rate that we have in South Australia. Pollsmoor Maximum Security Prison is full of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, kidnappers, and the like—people with extremely violent pasts.

It currently has about 7,000 inmates; it is quite a vast institution. As we toured through there I saw some quite horrific sights. People who were quite mentally ill, with faeces all over the walls, and so on, were confined by themselves in cells and kept there pretty well around the clock. I guess that in some kind of distant comparison to our prisons, those inmates with a mental illness never seem to get enough care in our prisons. Among the inmates I came across was someone they called the 'bird man'; and the authorities allowed him to keep a bird because he had kept birds before he had entered prison.

He had a little cage, but the bird would come out and tamely sit on his hand sometimes and he would feed it. In fact, his aggressive behaviour had reduced markedly after he had been given this bird to look after. I sing the praises of prisoners having suitable pets, such as birds, and only for those prisoners who qualify in the sense that I have already mentioned.

The other matter, finally, to which I will refer, is the anomaly in our prison system when it comes to offenders being released on parole if they have a head sentence of less than five years. It is a matter that I will speak to further in committee, but I am grateful for the government's support for my proposal to put violent offenders, at least, on the same footing as violent offenders who have more than a five year gaol term. In all those cases the Parole Board, I believe, should have the opportunity to assess whether such a person is really ready to come back into the general community.

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) (16:24): I start by thanking the shadow attorney-general and the shadow minister for corrections for their support and the smooth passage of this legislation. I understand they have indicated that they have no amendments, so I am very grateful for their support. I wish to mention a few matters the shadow attorney-general raised, especially given her fear on a number of matters in terms of the delegations.

I think that this bill is not that controversial other than what the government is intending to do in committee. I want to start by congratulating the member for Mitchell for his fine work on his amendment, which he foreshadowed a long time ago. He did not just walk in here, last minute, with it written on the back of an envelope. He had thought about it, consulted and spoken to people about it. I had spoken to other people about any possible amendments and none were foreshadowed. The member for Mitchell should be congratulated very much for the hard work he is doing. I can say to him today that the government will be accepting his amendment. We will be tidying it up a little bit to make sure that we catch people who are currently in prison. I wish to pass on my congratulations to him.

I am sure that honourable members opposite are aware that legislation takes a number of forms. Some legislation is designed to review all aspects of an act, and such legislation requires major changes and, by its nature, it is generally widely consulted. This amendment bill is not such a document. It is not a bill of lost opportunity, as it has been described by the honourable member for Bragg.

As I stated when I first introduced this bill to the house, it is simply a list of amendments that are required to remove impediments that impact on effective custodial management or to streamline existing processes to maximise the use of available resources. Consultation, therefore, has been directed at those directly affected by the changes.

The honourable member made a number of references to youth and children in her speech in this house. She said that this legislation deals with adults and children who are incarcerated. She also said that we are dealing with all age groups, and 'because this bill deals with correctional services provided across the state, it also includes children'.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The member for Bragg is not accurate, and it is probably not her fault. The act has absolutely nothing to do with the incarceration of children. The Correctional Services Act 1982, that is, the subject of this bill, is about adult offenders only. With very few exceptions, only offenders over the age of 18 can be placed in adult prisons.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, well, that's right. I presume that, in making her statements, the honourable member is referring to subsequent changes that have been made to the Young Offenders Act, which she quoted during her speech. These changes do not impact on children or young offenders. They simply seek to transfer the authority for appointing and revoking the appointment of G4S staff who work at Mount Gambier Prison and who transfer offenders between courts, hospitals and other facilities, from the Governor to the minister for corrections.

Under existing arrangements, the Governor is required to personally approve and revoke the appointment of every G4S staff member who works within prisons. This takes a long time. It impacts on the resources of the department and the valuable time of the Governor and members of the cabinet subcommittee who must process every application. I repeat: none of the initiatives discussed in the bill impact on the incarceration or treatment of children in custody.

The member for Bragg went on at great length to discuss the government's intention to do away with the community services committee. In supporting her argument she made a number of statements, of which I remind the house:

...they [the community service committees] have not even been appointed during the lifetime of this government. For the last six or seven years we have not had any of them.

She went on to say:

...for six or seven years under this government there has been no reappointment of this committee since the previous government.

She then said, 'They do not even exist.' I understand that the honourable member was briefed on the bill by the department's chief executive. I am advised that during the briefing the chief executive outlined that the central community service committee had not operated for about six years and that no new members had been appointed. However, all existing committee members of the central and regional committees are appropriately appointed in accordance with the act.

Ms Chapman: I didn't say that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry? Did you say you didn't say that? I can go back to the Hansard.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, because I've got the letters here. I just want to read them out to the member for Bragg just so that she knows we are not actually in breach. I have here a letter dated 5 March 2008, Mr Brian Condon, appointed; Mr Lindsay Thomas, 3 March 2008, appointed; Tom Clarkson, 3 March 2008, appointed. I can go on and on.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I didn't brief the member for Bragg. So, before the member for Bragg accuses me of misleading the parliament, would—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Anyway, I think my point is that it was just a misunderstanding, and I understand her error. I am happy to show the member for Bragg the letters afterwards, and I accept her apology.

What is clear is that the committees have for a considerable period of time not added the value that they originally set out to add. Existing arrangements are robust, proven and tested. No complaints are received about community service work displacing private sector employees, and few complaints are received about community service projects.

The program is going from strength to strength. Recent rebadging of the entire community service program to Repay SA has netted a huge upsurge in products from local communities that cannot afford to do the work for themselves.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Imitation is the greatest flattery. Projects, such as graffiti removal, have benefited the entire community. This is a great initiative that does not require committees to oversee any work. We are not taking work away from AWU members when they are doing graffiti removal. It is graffiti removal and work where the community cannot afford to have it done, so corrections steps in, gives some training and gives people a better sense of their community, and we get good outcomes for the prisoners, the parolees and, of course, the local community.

I come now to some statements that have been made in this place by some members opposite about prison visiting inspectors. I take the opportunity to thank the many visiting inspectors and tribunals who give their valuable time and reinforce the Rann government values with their commitment.

Under current legislation, visiting inspectors can be legal practitioners, justices of the peace or retired judicial officers—not, as the member for Bragg stated, only justices of the peace. The member for Bragg said that only justices of the peace with that appointment can act as a visiting inspector of prisons. I think that it is also wrong to refer to visiting inspectors as toothless tigers.

I can assure this house that a recommendation of a visiting inspector is taken very seriously by the department. No general manager would refuse to consider or act upon a reasonable request from a visiting inspector. The legislation as proposed does not affect that situation; it simply tries to overcome a problem that exists with attracting people prescribed in the act to undertake the role.

Historically, it has been very difficult to find legal practitioners or retired judicial officers who are prepared to act as visiting inspectors. JPs have become the sole source from whom the department can recruit. In some rural areas, despite its best efforts, the department has great difficulty in attracting JPs; Cadell is one such area.

In addition, it has been challenging, despite all efforts, to find Aboriginal justices of the peace who might be prepared to work in the prisons. There are many well-respected Aboriginal elders who would be eminently suited to work in this area; however, they are not justices of the peace. The department is well aware that the lack of Aboriginal visiting inspectors does not impact on and can disadvantage some Aboriginal prisoners.

The government's intention in amending the act is certainly not to reduce either the importance or the work of the visiting inspectors or downgrade the standard of those who become inspectors; it is simply to ensure that sufficient suitable inspectors are available to visit prisoners every week and resolve their concerns. It is not our intention to adopt the Western Australian prison inspection system.

The member for Bragg has been talking about solitary confinement. I think she has probably watched one too many episodes of Hogan's Heroes.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a great show and one of my favourites.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Sprechen sie Deutsch?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Nein. I am not sure that she believes this, but she gave the impression that we have solitary confinement cells specially designed to separate prisoners for punishment. I think that the term 'solitary confinement' is not even used any more. We separate prisoners, and we do so for their protection.

What I am confused about is that we are criticised for doubling up, we are criticised for having two people to a cell but, when prisoners request to be separated because they fear for their safety or because they are a protected, it is called solitary confinement and we are condemned for that as well. I am not sure how the member for Bragg can reconcile the attack on a government for doubling up and then talk about her opposition to so called solitary confinement.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: So, it's a bit like a holiday, is it, Tom?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it is not a holiday. Prison is not a nice place, but we do this for the protection of the prisoner. We have a duty of care. I am sure that the member for Mitchell would not want us to put somebody in Bevan Spencer von Einem's cell to share with him? So, we do have separations, and those separations—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Are you sure he has not shared a cell?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let me be quite clear, the member has made use of the term 'solitary confinement' throughout her contribution; she has used 'solitary confinement', 'isolation' and 'separation'. The government will continue to be tough on crime and ensure that those who break the law are punished, but punishment, however, will not include torture in any form, nor will it include the use of solitary confinement.

Our prisons are humane, and they are safe for both staff and prisoners. It is quite wrong to suggest that the separation of prisoners constitutes solitary confinement, or a cooler, or a dungeon, or any other term you might want to use. Solitary confinement conjures up images of prisons of days gone by, of long-term isolation in dark cells. That does not happen in South Australia.

Most prisons have management cells and they are used to separate prisoners for their own safety and for the safety and good order of the prison. These cells, in the main, are modern, with toilets and showers, and by and large prisoners who are placed in these cells are there for only a few days.

The majority of separations occur because prisoners require protection for their own safety, or because there are those who have placed the good order and security of the prison at risk. Separation is not just limited to the department's management cells. Prisoners who have no contact or who are denied contact with other prisoners are regarded as being separated. There are many instances where prisoners ask to be locked in their own cells during association time because they may feel threatened or just, simply, want time out to escape the attention of other prisoners.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, the member for Bragg thinks it is solitary confinement. It is not solitary confinement. The majority of separations rarely exceed four days, I do not think that the Public Service lies to me. Separation is essential for prison authorities to provide effective and safe prisoner management. It has been around for many years, and during the term of the previous Liberal government. This government will not be swayed by those who throw around such terms as 'isolation' and 'solitary confinement' when referring to separations as a means to detract from its real purpose or to gain any political mileage.

Ms Chapman: Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, is a duck.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): The member for Bragg had the opportunity to speak before. I am warning her now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In closing, I would invite the member for Bragg to visit any of our prisons. She is more than welcome to have a tour. I do not have to be there.

The ACTING SPEAKER: The minister will ignore interjections.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know, sir, but it is just so hard to ignore. I would invite the member to point out in one of our gaols where we have solitary confinement cells. As I said in my opening remarks, these changes will also make prisoners more accountable for their actions, which I am sure will please all members, especially members opposite.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: The member for Bragg!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I thank the staff from the department and parliamentary counsel for their hard work, especially Mr Chris Johnson, who I am sad to say will retire at the end of the month after 15 years of excellent service to the Department for Correctional Services, and 45 years of service to the people of South Australia. Congratulations Mr Johnson on your retirement. I commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Page 3—

Line 4 [clause 4, inserted subsection (2)]—Delete 'is' and substitute 'includes'

Line 10 [clause 4, inserted subsection (2)(b)]—Delete 'appointed' and substitute 'designated'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Page 3—Lines 15 to 17 [clause 4, inserted section 4A(1)]—Delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) The Minister may, by written notice, designate a person to whom this section applies as a person who is to be taken to be an officer of the Department for the purposes of this act, the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 and any other prescribed act.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Page 3—

Line 21 [clause 4, inserted section 4A(2)(b)]—Delete 'an appointment' and substitute:

a designation

Line 31 [clause 4, inserted section 4A(3)(c)]—Delete 'appointed' and substitute 'designated'

Lines 32 and 33 [clause 4, inserted section 4A (4)]—Delete subsection (4) and substitute:

(4) Section 74 of the Public Sector Act 2009 does not apply to a person designated under subsection (1).

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 16 passed.

New clause 16A.

Mr HANNA: I move:

New clause, page 5, after line 26—After clause 16 insert:

16A—Amendment of section 66—Automatic release on parole for certain prisoners

(1) Section 66(2)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) a prisoner if any part of the imprisonment for which the prisoner was sentenced is in respect of an offence of personal violence; or

(2) Section 66—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) In this section—

offence of personal violence means any of the following offences (including a substantially similar offence against a corresponding previous enactment or the law of another place):

(a) an offence against the person under Part 3 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935;

(b) a home invasion;

(c) an offence of robbery or aggravated robbery;

(d) a conspiracy to commit, or an attempt to commit, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

(e) an offence that is committed in circumstances in which the offender uses violence or a threat of violence for the purpose of committing the offence, in the course of committing the offence, or for the purpose of escaping from the scene of the offence.

I first moved non-government legislation in this place in, I think, November last year. It was a problem brought to my attention by a constituent from Sheidow Park who had suffered a home invasion. He had been visiting his son or grandson's place, simply returning a laundry basket of clothes to that address. Meanwhile, three young men in search of something rocked up and, because the constituent concerned did not have and would not want to give the three offenders anything, they savagely beat him. He sustained numerous injuries, including head injuries, and he suffers from those injuries to this day.

It was a shocking case. The young men involved did not have much of an offending history, so they were sentenced to several years imprisonment but their nonparole period was less than five years; in fact, it was two or three years. My constituent was shocked on a couple of grounds. First, no-one had explained to him that the head sentence was relatively meaningless in practical terms. From his point of view, if it were a notional four year head sentence, he thought they would be imprisoned for four years. Neither the prosecutor nor anyone else in the court, and no-one from the police or any other agency, had explained, so that he could understand it, that a four year head sentence would never really be the term spent in prison by the relevant offender. Because it was a term of imprisonment of less than five years, the law—which is the current law today—ensured that each of the three offenders would be out almost to the day that their nonparole period expired. That was a couple of years earlier than anticipated by my constituent.

Secondly, my constituent was very aggrieved that these young men, who had behaved extremely violently, were being released without an analysis by the Parole Board as to whether or not they were fit to return to the community. It is this second point that my amendment seeks to address.

I crafted this amendment to refer particularly to violent offenders, and members can see a range of serious violent offences listed there. I have called these 'offences of personal violence'. It seems to me that, in these cases in particular, the community wants the Parole Board to check these people before they are released. It is not too much to ask, and I believe the only reason it has not been done before is because of budgetary restraints. In an ideal world everyone would be checked before they were released from prison to determine that they were fit to live again in the community.

Five years was an arbitrary cut-off point, and below that release was automatic. Not any more, and I am very grateful for the government's support. Minister Koutsantonis has been particularly understanding in relation to the problem I have brought before the parliament, and I am glad to see the government backing this amendment.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise to support the amendment. It is substantially the amendment moved in private members' time in the form of another bill, which the opposition supported in principle. I similarly have a private member's bill in relation to bushfire and arson offences relating to the same principle, and was to move an amendment to that effect so that the house could deal with it. It has been on the Notice Paper for all members to consider since April. The minister advises me that he needs just a little more time to cost the impact of our amendment and that if I force his hand today the amendment will be lost. So, I will not waste the house's time in relation to the amendment. The minister and I have agreed that he will look at the amendment between the houses. The opposition will move the amendment in the other house and then it may have to come back here if the other place accepts it as an amendment to the bill. So, the house may well deal with this matter again.

I will not hold the house any further other than to say to the minister that I think he needs another transitional provision in this bill, because it does not deal with circumstances where the Parole Board has already told the prisoner they are going to get out and, because of the changes being made in this bill today, they will now find that they are not going to get out even though the Parole Board has already advised them of that. I think that is wrong in principle, and I have an amendment that the shadow can move that will fix it up. I thank the minister for his agreement on the other matter, and we look forward to dealing with it in the upper house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First of all, I want to congratulate the member for Mitchell on an excellent amendment, which the government has agreed to. Secondly, I would have been very happy to accommodate the member for Davenport or the member for Bragg or the shadow minister for corrections if any of them had spoken to me about this earlier. It seems eminently sensible.

However, I think walking into parliament and writing amendments on the back of a piece of paper makes for bad legislation. I think if there was a more considered approach to it there probably would have been a very different result today. I think it is completely unreasonable for the member for Davenport to make the accusation that the government will use its numbers to knock off a 'back of envelope' amendment.

I have not tried to take credit for the member for Mitchell's amendment. He is an independent member who has made an amendment. I think it is a very good one, and the government accepts it. If the member for Davenport had advised me earlier on this government bill that he wanted to do the same here, rather than what he was doing in private members' time, perhaps I could have been ready with a few more costings and working out how we could implement it—commencement times and all that sort of thing—but of course he did not. He just walked in, heard it was going on, back of an envelope, 'These are the amendments,' and then walked out.

Ms CHAPMAN: I indicate that the opposition supports the member for Mitchell's amendment. The debate on this amendment is, I think, rather concerning. It probably illustrates more about how little governments take notice of what is in private members' business than anything else and how little attention is given to it, probably on the presumption that it will never see the light of day unless they ever agree with it, particularly to vote on. Nothing was more evident than in private members' time today when we debated reform in relation to the building industry on a bill that was presented—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On a point of order, Madam Chair, the member is reflecting on a vote of the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I am not. Time was taken during private members' time today to deal with a bill in respect of the building industry (I simply indicate the subject matter), which was clearly government business, which took up I think an hour in total of private members' time. It is little wonder that private members' bills do not ever see the light of day in this place and do not have an opportunity to be dealt with. For the minister to acknowledge that the content of a private member's bill has not been given attention to—has not been costed or otherwise—should make that very clear to all members in the house who are waiting for a private member's matter to get up.

In addition, with respect to the suggestion that bills do not come in with amendments at the last minute, I read today in the minister's own press release about the acceptance of the member for Mitchell's amendment that would have been tabled. We did not even know about it. I read about it in the minister's press release. However, he got it wrong because, as I read out, he started to refer to leaving the scene of an accident instead of leaving the scene of where an offence has been committed.

Notwithstanding that, having had notice of it via the press release, I thought it was a sensible amendment that was being moved. I was pleased to see that the government is accepting it. We quickly located it and conferred on it and we are here today to support it. So, do not give us this nonsense in this debate about amendments coming in at the last minute or otherwise. In this case, the last minute was April.

The minister should have been well aware of this proposal being presented by a private member and it should have had his consideration. The fact that it has not should indicate to this committee what little regard the government has for anything that private members on either side of the house put forward, because, clearly, if it does not want it, it is not debated and it ensures that it never sees the light of the day.

I am disappointed that this aspect of the private member's bill is not under consideration. I accept that the minister has placed on the record that he will consider it between houses and that it may be able to be dealt with. However, members should certainly not assume that we on this side of the house will be dismissive of someone's proposal, a good idea, even if we get notice of it through a press release.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]


The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The bill before us has been on the table for a period of time now. The member for Davenport knew it was on the table. He had another bill. I have not even seen the amendments he wishes to move. I do not think they are even drafted. I am saying that I am happy to consider them. If they work well, I am happy to consider them and give him the credit for them.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chair. My point of order relates to the fact that, currently, we have under consideration the member for Mitchell's amendment. The member for Davenport has spoken, the minister has spoken, I have spoken and now the minister appears to want to have a second bite of the cherry about an ancillary issue. I ask for your ruling in relation to this, because unless he has a question for the mover of the motion, who is the member for Mitchell, I suggest it is out of order.

The CHAIR: Any member is entitled to ask questions or contribute opinion three times during the debate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It has only been the practice for 100 years. Anyway, I think the anticipated amendments of the member for Davenport have a lot of merit. What upset me was not the member for Davenport's intent or his desire not to do the right thing, but the fact that I had not even seen the amendments that he is planning to move. In relation to the member for Bragg, I am reminded of a story her late father told me when I first got in here. He said to me—

Ms Chapman: 'Give up, Tom.' Is that what he said?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, he didn't say, 'Give up, Tom.' He said, 'Listen, boy, within six months of an election campaign you will not get anything done in this building because everyone is trying to get their point up, no matter how reasonable it is. So, do it straight after an election, never six months out.' I never thought that it would be this bad.

I would like to see what the member for Davenport wants to do. I would like him, at least, to explain the amendments to me and to which clauses they relate; and, if they are workable, I would probably be happy to accept them. I would like to look at them at least. I have seen the member for Mitchell's amendments on the table for weeks. All I did was to make sure that they applied immediately. The member for Bragg can hypothesise all she likes about my intent and the way in which I treat private members' business, but I think that she needs to look in her own backyard first. I will consider between the houses the amendments the member for Davenport has flagged.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will not delay the committee for long because I think that the member for Mitchell's bill and the minister's bill deserve to be passed quickly. However, I will place this on the record for the minister so that historians know the facts on this one. The minister says that he has not seen the amendment. That is quite true because I have not yet tabled the amendment. If the minister had extended the courtesy of letting me explain the amendment I could have told him that it is exactly the same words—not one different—as the bill tabled on 30 April this year that has been adjourned a number of times by his side of the house. We have not had that discussion because—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Which one? The last one or the one about home detention? Which one?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do not have a bill about home detention. This is the correctional services parole No. 2 bill, which is to do with arson and bushfires—those people accused of arson in certain categories, as per the bill, and the bushfire offence, who should not get automatic parole; it is that bill. It is the same bill, minister, I wrote to you about during question time about a month ago, just before this matter was last adjourned, and you told me to speak to the Attorney-General about it.

The reality is that this house deals with handwritten amendments that are thought up on the floor by members on a regular basis—it has been like that for 100 years. Had the minister given me the opportunity at least to move the amendment—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —no; hang on—and for him to see the words, the minister would have known that they are exactly the same words that his side of the house has been aware of since 30 April. I will not go out and criticise the minister publicly on this in the media. The minister has given me his word that he will now consider it between the houses. Well, thank goodness, because it has been only seven months. Minister, with due respect, your staff—not you, your staff—need a kick.

For a staff member not to have this already costed after seven months, having not sent it to the department and got a response—sitting there in the minister's office when you were doing this bill, a staff member should have thought, 'Gee whiz, the member for Mitchell and the member for Davenport have two bills on the Notice Paper that go to this very act. I wonder whether they will move the amendments they want to get up? I wonder.' Obviously no-one went through that process in the office.

I have said my bit. We have got the agreement. The government can vote this down in the upper house if it wants and let people who light bushfires out early, that is fine. I will not have this nonsense that you have not seen the amendment. The words of the amendment pick up the exact bill I put in 6½ months ago, and if 6½ months' notice is not enough for the government, God help us.

New clause inserted.

New clauses 16A and 16B.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Page 5, after line 26—After clause 16 insert:

16A—Amendment of section 86—Prison officers may use reasonable force in certain cases.

Section 86—after 'officer' insert 'or employee'

16B—Repeal of section 86A

Section 86A—delete the section

New clauses inserted.

Clause 17.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am referring to the insertion of the provision to enable the more flexible regulation of the holding and acquisition of prisoners' personal property. You might recall, minister, that I raised in my contribution a concern I had, which arose from a briefing. It was along the lines that this would enable a better opportunity to accommodate the modern position, namely, that prisoners have a lot more assets than they used to in value, and sometimes a lot more property. The restrictive confines of the area that they are allowed to take up, or the value, was obviously oppressive, and this is was a way of dealing with the flexibility of that.

On the flipside, I have been advised (as I said, I cannot recall the source during the course of this debate) by some interested party who was concerned that, in their view, this was designed to remove the obligation of the department for corrections to provide secure storage of prisoners' property. I just want some clarification of that.

Is this to accommodate the modern situation, or is it really just to relieve the department of the obligation to store assets? I am assuming that we do not have a situation where the department is obliged to store and pay for a prisoner's entire household effects and goods, but I just want to be reassured that there is some basis for this, which is in the interest of the prisoner and, indeed, of the department.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I sympathise with the member for Bragg's position on this—I really do—but it is a matter of space, storage and transport. We would like prisoners to be able to safely store their belongings that are held by the department while they are being moved. It is unfair to expect the department to be hauling massive amounts of personal property. We would like some sort of standard amount of personal belongings that people can have with them while they are in prison.

Of course, while prisoners are being moved, they have televisions, radios and all sorts of personal belongings. We would like them all to fit in a certain sized container so that they are easier to move. It is very difficult, when we are moving prisoners, and there are security requirements. Often, they want to take their things with them. It is a matter of making sure that we can do all of those things effectively. I move:

Page 5, after line 28—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Section 89(2)(h) and (i)—after 'officers' wherever occurring insert in each case:

or employees

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am now not proceeding with schedule 113(3) and proceeding with schedule 113(4).

The CHAIR: So, minister, are you proceeding to move amendment No. 9 on schedule 1?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: The first paragraph is nominated '4'. Is that correct? It should be '1'. It is a typographical error. In schedule 113(1), in amendment No. 9 replace '4' first appearing with '1'.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Over the page, replace '5' with '2'. It still amends section 4, but it is clause (1).

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Page 6, lines 1 to 14—Delete Schedule and substitute:

Schedule 1—Related amendment of Young Offenders Act 1993

1—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

Section 4—after its current contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) A reference in this Act to an officer of the Department includes a reference to—

(a) a person who, immediately before the commencement of this subsection, held an appointment made by the Governor as an officer of the Department; or

(b) a person who, after the commencement of this subsection, is designated by the Minister as an officer of the Department under section 4A.

2—Insertion of section 4A

After section 4 insert:

4A—Designation as officers of Department for certain purposes

(1) The Minister may, by written notice, designate a person to whom this section applies as a person who is to be taken to be an officer of the Department for the purposes of the Act, the Youth Court Act 1993 and any other prescribed Act.

(2) The Minister may, by written notice, revoke—

(a) the appointment of an officer of the Department made by the Governor before the commencement of this section; or

(b) a designation made under subsection (1).

(3) This section applies to a person if—

(a) the person is engaged by another person (the contractor) to carry out certain work in the course of and for the purposes of the contractor's business; and

(b) the contractor is engaged, in the course of and for the purposes of a business, by the Minister under a contract, arrangement or understanding for the purposes of this Act or another Act; and

(c) the Minister is satisfied that the person is a suitable person to be designated as an officer of the Department.

(4) Section 74 of the Public Sector Act 2009 does not apply to a person designated under subsection (1).

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

New schedule 2.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Page 6—After Schedule 1 insert:

Schedule 2—Transition provision

1—Transitional provision

The amendments made by Part 2 of this Act to section 66 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 are intended to apply in respect of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment immediately before the commencement of this clause regardless of when the prisoners were sentenced.

New schedule inserted.

Title.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Long title—Delete 'and the Youth Court Act 1993.'

Mr HANNA: I just want to clarify this. Is this one of the transitional provisions?

The CHAIR: No; it is an amendment to the long title. It will read:

Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2009

A BILL FOR

An Act to amend the Correctional Services Act 1982; and to make related amendments to the Young Offenders Act 1993

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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