HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-10-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 18 October 2011.)

Clause 51.

The CHAIR: As I recall when we were last on clause 51, the member for Bragg accepted that as it was.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 52 to 56 passed.

Clause 57.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 20, lines 27 to 35 [clause 57(3) and (4)]—Delete subclauses (3) and (4)

This amendment seeks to delete subclauses (3) and (4). This will have the effect of the police continuing to access parole information in accordance with informal mutual exchange arrangements, and the second reading indicated the importance of that to occur.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We believe it is important that police officers do have this information, so we will not be supporting the amendment. I would also like to point out that, during the committee stage yesterday, I mistakenly referred to police officers issuing warrants. It is the government's intention that the chief executive have the power to issue warrants and that the police have the power to arrest a parolee without a warrant. I apologise if anyone was misled.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 58.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 21—

After line 13 [clause 58, inserted section 85CA]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) However, a Chief Executive is not required to disclose any such personal information unless the Chief Executive believes on the balance of probabilities that the information is correct.

Lines 17 and 18 [clause 58, inserted section 85CA(3)]—Delete ', whether true or not,'

I move these amendments to ensure that the prisoner information be disclosed only between the chief executives where the chief executive believes on the balance of probability that the information provided is true. This will, of course, be something that will ensure—we hope, but as best as possible and at least on the balance of probability—that information which is inaccurate, untruthful and unreliable is not used as the basis for the transfer of information. We leave it to the chief executive to make that observation and determination. We think that is a threshold that is both achievable and reaches a fair balance, and leaves at least the chief executive with the responsibility of forming an opinion as to whether or not the information is true.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member's amendments seek to change the wording of the bill that refers to the sharing of health information with the chief executive of the Department for Correctional Services. The wording is based entirely on associated health legislation. Section 93(6) of the Health Care Act 2008 and section 106(5) of the Mental Health Act 2009 should remain as they are drafted. I do not support the amendment.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 59 to 62 passed.

Clause 63.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Page 22, after line 36—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Section 89(2)—after paragraph (ja) insert:

(jb) prescribing matters to be included in applications and notices under Part 7; and

This is consequential on the other amendments moved earlier in the debate which go to the principle of the prisoner compensation fund.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In the spirit of bipartisanship the government accepts this amendment. We will accept the amendment but can I ask the opposition for an indulgence? If this amendment is not a consequential amendment to the initial spirit of our agreement, will the opposition withdraw it in the upper house?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The answer to that is yes, because parliamentary counsel tell me that it is consequential to the scheme. It is as filed some weeks ago, so nothing has changed. It is the same as the amendments to schedule 1 that are coming up.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Heading, page 23, line 1—Delete 'amendments' and substitute:

amendment and transitional provision

New Part, page 23, after line 9—After Part 1 insert:

Part 2—Transitional provision

2—Transitional provision

(1) Part 7 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (as inserted by section 51A of this Act) applies to an award of damages to a prisoner on or after the commencement of this clause in respect of a claim made by or on behalf of the prisoner against the State for a civil wrong regardless of when legal proceedings in respect of the civil wrong commenced.

(2) Words used in subclause (1) have the same meaning as in Part 7 of the Correctional Services Act 1982.

Again, these amendments are consequential and the same agreement with the minister applies regarding between the houses.

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services) (17:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:41): In the conclusion of the debate on this matter, I want to say three things. First, I express my appreciation that the minister has accommodated reform in this bill to ensure that there is some access by victims of crime to compensation payments that are enjoyed by prisoners whilst in prison, an initiative of the member for Davenport which formed part of his private member's bill, which he has now withdrawn in light of the government's acquiescence to this being accommodated and forming part of the new law reform in this area.

I think it is always a little churlish for governments not to embrace private members' bills when they present good ideas and delay the passage of those to accommodate what can really only be their own egos.

From time to time a minister will say—and it is quite appropriate in some circumstances—that there are no other areas of comprehensive reform and that it needs to cover other issues to fully appreciate an aspect. The minister could have said in this instance, 'There are other aspects of compensation to victims of crime that we want to accommodate in respect of funds that are taken or accumulated by prisoners which have not been covered in your bill, member for Devonport, therefore we want to do a more comprehensive review.' However, this is a classic example of where a discrete issue has been presented in a bill and the government has not supported it as a bill but, ultimately, acquiesced to it being part of the amendments in this bill on issues which are actually quite different to that which have been raised by the member for Devonport. I think that sort of conduct by ministers is churlish at best.

There are, as I say, circumstances where the whole issue of compensation for victims of crime have been raised. There would be some merit in that argument. There have been situations in the house before where more comprehensive reform was needed, and we waited until the government had done an investigation and we dealt with it. Nevertheless, agreement to the amendments in this bill—whilst not supporting the private member's bill—has been accommodated, and I thank the minister for that. Additionally, I recognise and thank those in the department and from parliamentary counsel who have provided advice through this matter.

Secondly, the government have insisted on reform by the transfer of power to issue warrants from what is currently the purview of the Parole Board and to spread that responsibility/right or power to do so to an administrator and to law enforcers. As I have said during the course of this debate, I consider that, firstly, to be contrary to our doctrine of separation of powers and, secondly, that there had been no demonstrable need. Not one example during the course of the second reading had been presented by the minister to identify when access to leadership of the Parole Board had been denied. Not one single circumstance had been presented to justify that.

Nothing had been identified to show how that would have prevented the Shane Robinson siege and the tragic outcome or how to act as an effective measure in future cases. There has been no report to parliament, which I had asked for during the committee stage, for the minister to explain to us why there had been no report to the parliament, why there had been no explanation, no details provided during the debate.

No comfort is given that it will ever happen again in the future or what the outcome was of whatever inquiry they have done (if they have done one at all) or what the police are doing now that they were not doing before to make sure that it does not happen again. All of those basic fundamental questions about which promises were made to investigate, fix, ensure and protect in the future, none of that has been presented and we are now here at the end of the debate.

I am comforted at least by what I hear independent of this debate. There appear to be no outstanding warrants now. There seems to be some practice operating where the warrants are issued and that there is some priority given to the implementation of them; that is great. If that has come as a result of the Shane Robinson siege, I am pleased to hear it, but I think it would have been of some comfort to South Australia to hear from the minister on that as to what has occurred.

I suppose this is the third issue I say in summary of this debate that is of great concern. The government has dismissed entirely any reform to ensure that there is responsible use of the power of the Executive Council. Yesterday we had the Premier, not in this debate but during question time, espouse the virtue of the conduct of his government (of executive) to keep eight convicted murderers behind bars. We had a long list of those and the tawdry detail of the alleged murder's circumstances on which they had been gaoled. What was curious was that unfortunately the Premier had not come into this debate and he explained why he had not mentioned at all the Michael Peter Webb case, also a murder case. I would suggest that it was conveniently left out during question time because of the inequity that had prevailed in one having access to the criminal justice system and the Parole Board recommendation and the other being overturned without any explanation.

It is not only the ignorance of the government in respect of the contempt for the people of South Australia who rely on a just and fair criminal justice system, but really I would describe the whole performance as an ignorant redneck, suggesting that the whole rehabilitation of anyone who commits a murder in some way is now some sort of dirty word.

We had the continued disregard of the safety of correctional services officers and where prisoners are given no hope ever of obtaining parole. We have the dismissive and wasteful conduct of the government in continuing to spend taxpayers' money to pay for Parole Board expertise and time. Ultimately, of course, we have the hypocrisy of a situation where governments use the legal system's independence when it suits them, when it is convenient, when they say that they cannot comment on something that might be embarrassing to them and yet use it to completely ignore that set of rules when they want to make a statement.

The classic example, I would say, is the Treasurer, when he made statements about the United Water/SA Water case. For three years, the South Australian public were kept in the dark. I just simply use it by way of illustration because, when it suits the ministers to do that, they make all sorts of statements on radio, in parliament and wherever it suits. When they are under scrutiny themselves they say, 'Well, that is a matter before the courts. We cannot possibly make any comment.'

I highlight the fact that both those ministers—the Minister for Police and the Premier—have had the opportunity during this debate to come in and say to us here in the parliament, 'These are the circumstances that prevailed. This is what happened in the Shane Robinson case. This is what we are doing to remedy it. This is what happened with the police and this is what happened with the Webb case.' But oh, no, we had the grandstanding, chest thumping Rambo and Robin performance during question time to deal with this issue.

So, minister, in the dying days of the administration under this Premier, I want you take note of one important thing. You will, I expect, continue to be a senior minister in the next Labor government—the Weatherill Labor government. Please remember two things. First, the members of the opposition will not stand for the people of South Australia to be compromised by an abusive use of Executive Council in respect of the rejecting of parole recommendations. We will not support that. We have offered a reasonable compromise.

Secondly, if you remain in the new cabinet as a member of the government, we expect, during the debate on these matters, some response and some answers. If you are not in a position to give it to us in your final contribution in this third reading debate, that will confirm my disappointment in you, minister, having made it very clear that the two senior other people on this matter, who have been privy to those Executive Council decisions, have continued to abuse those processes. In two days' time, we will be relieved of their contribution. We expect a better standard in the next administration.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services) (17:52): My first remarks are to thank all members opposite for their contributions. The opposition sees the value in many of the amendments contained in the bill and I thank members opposite for their support. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised during the debate.

The opposition sought clarification about a proposal to include an optional condition of parole to require some offenders to provide a prospective employer with details of their criminal history. While the opposition is right, that this is intended for child sex offenders, the amendment is worded more broadly as it will give the Parole Board an option to include the condition for any parolee if they deem it necessary.

This would be especially the case if the current offending did not include child sex offences, but that offender had a history of such offending. For this reason, the government believes it would be better if the wording was left as it was. I hope the opposition can see now the reasons for drafting in this manner.

In regards to warrants issued for the arrest of a parolee, I can strongly reiterate that the inclusion of the CE as being able to issue a warrant is intended as an additional body only and specifically for times that the presiding or deputy presiding members of the Parole Board are unavailable. It is expected that this authority would be used infrequently but would provide an avenue for an urgent emergency response that occurred out of hours, for example. I thank the member for Bragg for being concerned about the CE having an unfair dual responsibility, as that position is also responsible for prisons, but I remain convinced that the position of chief executive can manage this responsibly and adequately.

The member for Bragg has expressed opposition to police having powers of arrest of a parolee without a warrant and quoted existing powers under alternative legislation. She is right, there are certain powers of arrest under other legislation, but let me give you an example of why the Commissioner of Police wants this additional power.

A parolee with a serious history of family violence, with a condition of parole of abstinence from alcohol is seen in a licensed premises being unruly and creating mischief, and the police are called. Under the other legislation, the police may not have the power to arrest in this situation, but under the provision of this bill they do. They can arrest and hold in a police cell for up to 12 hours until the Parole Board can make a decision about the alleged breach of parole. The Commissioner of Police wanted this additional legislative power and, for public safety, so does the government.

I also want to address an issue raised by the member for Adelaide. Firstly, I thank her for her contribution and positive comments about the strengthened visiting procedures at the Adelaide Remand Centre. In line with this commitment, the bill contains a provision to raise penalties for attempting to introduce certain prohibited items to prisons. The member for Adelaide has suggested that enhancing the visitor procedures would be enough, that we should install machines and processes that stop contraband through visitors. Yes, we are doing that, but we want to do both.

As the member for Bragg pointed out in her contribution, members of the public attempt to introduce contraband to prisons by throwing it over prison fences. Improved screening procedures will not stop that type of behaviour. The Department for Correctional Services and this government are committed to stopping contraband entering our prison system, and provisions to help stop dangerous, prohibited items getting into our prisons, either through visitors or over prison fences by others is what we are aiming to do. The bill strengthens the scrutiny of visitors and provides higher penalties for those outsiders trying to get drugs and contraband into our prisons.

In regard to the member's question that Centrelink cut off payments for those who have breached parole and are in the community evading authorities, this would be a matter for Centrelink, but I think it is an unwise and rash suggestion. An offender may be more inclined to offend in order to finance themselves, putting property and, even worse, the community at risk of crime.

Finally, the member for Kavel raised some issues about rehabilitation and farming activities at Yatala. He is right. Farming activities did occur at that site many years ago, but that was when it was the main male prison of the state. We now have other facilities that provide such work opportunities for prisoners—Port Lincoln and, of course, Cadell.

I want to thank members opposite for their contributions to the bill, and I want to thank the staff of the Department for Correctional Services for their hard work, particularly Jacqui Casey. Jacqui Casey is a fine public servant who goes unrewarded and unthanked for all her services, and on behalf of the government and the parliament I would like to thank her for all her hard work, and also, of course, my Deputy Chief Executive, Greg Weir, for all his hard work and patience, and Sarah Cocking, my staff—

Ms Chapman: For putting up with you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For putting up with me, yes. Jacqui, thank you for putting up with me for so long. I know it is difficult. I also want to thank all members, because I know that ultimately we all want the same thing, we just go about it a bit differently—although, probably not the member for Bragg and myself: we want different things. I want to make sure the criminal justice system works; she is a lawyer; so it is very different outcomes that we want. However, I do admire her passion on the issue, and I admire her advocacy on behalf of the Parole Board and Mrs Frances Nelson QC, for whom I do have a great deal of respect and admiration.

This bill would make it harder for people on parole to breach that privilege. I urge the house to support the third reading.

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting suspended from 17:58 to 19:30]


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