HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:52): I was indicating that the opposition would therefore be seeking that the parole reports continue to be provided by the community corrections officers directly to the Parole Board as they have the on-the-ground direct experience of the progress of the prisoners, and that this would be preferable to the government's initiative in this bill to transfer that responsibility to the chief executive.

The next matter is a proposal in this bill for breaches of conditions. The bill is to remove a distinction between 'standard' and 'designated' conditions so that all breaches of parole will potentially leave a prisoner liable to serving the remainder of their sentence in prison. All that sounds good and it simplifies and those sorts of things, but the Law Society has sought clarification that the changes would still allow the Parole Board to exercise a discretion over the length of further periods of custody.

There is an expectation, I suppose, on our side of the house that, probably, that was implicit in what the minister was suggesting would or should happen. We hope that is the case. What we are to going to propose is an amendment to simply make it very clear that the Parole Board will still be able to exercise discretion over the length of the further periods of custody. Therefore, we would hope that the minister would be supportive of an amendment to ensure that that will be the case, and if that is consistent with his intention—or he claims that was implicit—then, of course, we would look forward to his support.

The bill is also proposing to abolish automatic parole following a breach of parole. The automatic release to parole for prisoners who offend whilst on parole would be abolished, effectively. Previously, the Parole Board had to set a subsequent release date at the time of considering the breach and, under the changes, a prisoner must reapply to the Parole Board for release following a period of custody after a breach of parole: a good idea, and we will be supporting it and, therefore, there will be no amendment to it.

Clause 42(1) relates to probation and parole hostel and electronic monitoring, and the provisions under this clause would allow the Parole Board to place a condition on prisoners serving a life sentence who will be released on parole that for up to 12 months a person must reside at a specified premises, including a probation or parole hostel or a prison, and that a person undertake specific programs and activities to assist reintegration of the prisoner into the community.

These new provisions will allow parolees to be monitored through electronic devices, and the provision is for life sentence prisoners and non-life sentence prisoners. The current provisions of the act setting conditions for non-life sentence prisoners will be replicated under (1aa). The proposed conditions would be mandated after release from prison, that is, whilst on parole, a proposal which the opposition accepts.

Next is child sex offender reporting. The bill proposes to allow the Parole Board to place a mandatory requirement on convicted child sex offenders to advise their potential employer of their criminal history when applying for employment. Clause 42(2) provides the insertion of the following:

(d) a condition requiring the prisoner, on making an application for employment, to provide the prospective employer with a report about the prisoner's criminal history.

Whilst this is intended to deal with prior records of convicted child sex offenders, the Law Society and ALRM have expressed concern that this wording will not restrict the condition being placed on convicted child sex offenders. That could be tidied up. We will ask the minister to have a look at that so that it is absolutely clear, but the sentiment expressed is one that we support.

We have warrants issued by the Parole Board, and there is a tightening in this regard. Currently, a member of the Parole Board may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant for the arrest of a parolee for the purpose of bringing them before a hearing of the Parole Board. A warrant may also be issued by two individual members of the Parole Board.

That has worked, even in the Robinson case that I referred to, and you will recall that the Parole Board Chair, Frances Nelson QC, was in England, and acting chair, Mr Tim Bourne, undertook that position. There are processes by which there can continue to be operations of the Parole Board, including the recovery of a parolee who has breached a condition, and for a warrant to be issued when the chair is absent.

Clause 49 of the bill proposes to allow both the presiding member and the deputy presiding member of the Parole Board to issue warrants without the concurrence of the other. Another change to the bill would require any other member of the Parole Board to apply to a magistrate rather than a justice of the peace for a warrant if required. All warrants can be issued if a reasonable suspicion of a breach of parole exists. This relaxation of the threshold for a warrant to be issued from a member of the Parole Board is a relaxation which we agree with, because it provides more options for availability when a member may be absent or unavailable for some reason.

The next proposal, though, is one which we think is quite controversial. It is the beginning of the government's expansion to other law enforcement agencies to have a jurisdiction and indeed a responsibility in an area which is currently within the purview of the Parole Board.

Firstly the bill proposes that the chief executive would also have the power to issue a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that a parolee has breached a condition of parole. The warrant issued expires within five days, so it is not one that would simply lay on the table, as such; it is one that would have a fixed time period. The chief executive would be required to provide a written report explaining the matter to the Parole Board within two days of the warrant being issued. Given weekends, the detention could be effectively up to 11 days before a matter is considered.

The basis upon which the government is presenting this, I think, is to proffer this alternative process as one which will help in a convenience sense and would give other options to make sure that action has taken place, remembering that in this case the Parole Board had granted parole, a warrant had been issued and then somebody had not acted on it.

There had been no delay that I can see from any of the statements made in the Robinson case with getting a warrant issued. The problem here was that the warrant had been issued and nobody was doing anything about it expeditiously. It is not surprising therefore that, having consulted with the Parole Board and the Law Society and the ALRM, they would oppose these changes and the opposition agrees with them.

It is also noted that the introduction, I suppose, of the chief executive into this role of really a parole board responsibility, as distinct from the manager of prisons which is a different role—an important one but quite different—would effectively fragment the coordination of parole by the Parole Board. It introduces the chief executive into a quasi-judicial function which really is in direct conflict, I suggest, with him being the chief manager of a gaol. It creates a conflict of interest, potentially, for the chief executive, given the challenges of bed management in a chronically overcrowded prison system, and so places unfair dual responsibility on him.

It could, of course, promote forum shopping amongst the Parole Board, the chief executive and in the third category the police, which is a further proposal of the government. We would suggest that, given the time periods, especially with weekends and public holidays, there could be unnecessary extended periods of detention. The Parole Board has indicated that two working days for review of a warrant issued by a chief executive would be sufficient, with the chief executive being required to report to the Parole Board within one working day of the issue of the warrant, so if that process is going to be imposed on us, we would ask the minister to take that into account.

In essence, however, the Parole Board is doing its job. If the government or the parliament, in particular, is of the view that there should be more areas of consideration for a Parole Board to take into account before releasing someone on parole, then let us consider that and identify what further instruction, if any, should be given in a legislative form. Simply spreading this responsibility amongst other parties with all the same rules to apply does not actually resolve the problem, and that is making sure that we have a system that works and is able to coherently operate without fragmentation of the responsibility to balance between rehabilitation of the prisoner and the interests and safety of the public. We do not support that splitting of the role.

A further splitting is proposed by the bill in the government's desire to carry out its promises announced in the minister's press release; that is, to give the police the power to arrest a parolee without a warrant if a person is suspected of breaching a parole condition and 'if that person presents an imminent and serious risk to public safety'.

This, again, would provide for a person being detained for a period of up to 12 hours before the Parole Board is notified. Again, for many of the reasons that I indicated before, that would be inappropriate. Bear in mind that under section 75 of the Summary Offences Act police already have the power to:

...without any warrant other than this Act, at any hour of the day or night, may apprehend any person whom the officer finds committing, or has reasonable cause to suspect of having committed, or being about to commit, an offence.

That is already there in the act.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: But how do they know they are a parolee?

Ms CHAPMAN: They don't need to.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes, they do.

Ms CHAPMAN: They don't need to. That is another matter. So, this qualification: if that person presents an imminent and serious risk to public safety then there are provisions already in other legislation to make that arrest, if necessary, and to follow the charges under the Summary Offences Act.

The police also have a range of public disorder provisions available to them. I do not know whether the minister has briefed himself on that or had it brought to his attention. It is hard to imagine a circumstance or situation with a person representing themself as being an imminent and serious risk to public safety, where a police officer would not be able to arrest that person under current police powers. They do not need any access to parole information to reference that breach to a parole breach. That is a complete red herring. They do not need that.

So, the qualification you are putting on a police power to be able to arrest them as a breach of parole takes the proposed circumstance into existing criminal activity, which is already provided for and which police officers can do.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: They do not need to know that they are a parolee, they do not need to know that there has been a breach, they do not need to know anything. If a person is out there presenting as an imminent and serious risk to public safety, that is already an offence, it is already there. If somebody is in that category, they are threatening somebody or they are going to blow up the local circus, or whatever—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What if there is someone with a history of domestic violence who has been drinking?

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister interrupts to say: what if they have a history of drinking or domestic violence or whatever? It does not matter. If somebody is doing that then the police have the power to arrest them anyway, if they are causing an imminent and serious risk to public safety, which is the qualification. Drinking in itself does not necessarily denote that, of course, but if somebody is doing that then the police can arrest them, take them into custody, charge them and check their record, if they are in a stolen car, mixing with the wrong people, whether they are in breach of parole, blah, blah, blah. They have all of that.

So, I think the minister needs to appraise himself, or have the Attorney-General brief him, on what the current law is. The Minister for Police should know, but if he does not have a clue then ask the Attorney-General, because in the Summary Offences Act there is sufficient power to give to police, with that qualification. The minister is not giving them any more. What he is doing is splitting the role of responsibility, as the Parole Board has, to issue that warrant. They do not need it.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes, they do. They've asked for it and they need it.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, we are on a completely different plane in relation to that. We do not agree with it. It is not necessary. I find it hard to imagine where a police officer, in those circumstances, could not contact one of the Parole Board, which you are making provision for those services, to report the breach. Without that power, what would they do? They would simply turn to the Summary Offences Act and they would use that to take the person into custody.

Finally, there has been some discussion (which I am sure the minister is aware of) about how the question of dealing with how the power of Executive Council to refuse parole to prisoners serving life sentences should be dealt with. This has been a longstanding power of the executive government which can essentially say, 'We've received the recommendation of the Parole Board that X prisoner should go on parole, but we will make a decision to override that and keep him in there.'

Prior to 2002, no prisoner had been the subject of Executive Council overriding a Parole Board recommendation. Since this government has come into office, in some cases it has used multiple times to keep a prisoner in prison, contrary to the Parole Board. I am not saying that the Parole Board is always right about the decisions it makes, nor am I saying that it should not be open for an executive to act in certain circumstances, particularly where it may be privy to information that is not in the public arena and it is necessary for them to act to protect the public in those circumstances.

For example, if there was information about a prisoner that was obtained through security organisations for the country, and it had been transferred to the Premier or Attorney-General, about some antecedents of the prisoner that were dangerous or thought to be dangerous to the public if he was released—but it was not in the public arena and, in fact, it might have prejudiced other investigations or affect the direct safety of witnesses and those types of things—sometimes that information will come to government, or people high in government, and it is provided in confidence and it needs to remain in confidence.

However, one of the concerns that members, including the Hon. Ann Bressington, have raised, and foreshadowed in amendments to this legislation in another place, is that the practice or what has become the practice of this government to override the Parole Board does not appear once or in a circumstance that may well be justified for information that is privy to them, but at least on the face of it seems to be in response to the popularity or otherwise of keeping somebody in gaol. This is the sort of populist argument that the government has responded to, assuming that it will get extra credit at a forthcoming election or in a polling of its popularity, acquiescing to this expectation for their benefit rather than for the benefit of either the prisoner or the community.

If we are wrong about that, and it is being done because the information has come to their attention which is confidential and it would be against the interests of the public for that information to be shared, then so be it. However, it does seem hard to believe that in the history (pre 2002), never has the executive acted to override this, and now it has become a regular practice with some particular people in prison, and it is becoming quite concerning.

The reason is simply this: as a parliament, if we take the view that it is unacceptable for anyone who is convicted of, say, murder ever to be let out of prison until they go in a coffin, let's have that debate in here. Let us have that argument in here. Let us have that discussion in here and make that a law if that is what the parliament wants to pass to indicate that a) they might consider that those prisoners might never be rehabilitated, b) they do not deserve to be rehabilitated, and c) there is such a risk to the public even in a minimal circumstance that they do not want to ever let people out. I think we need to have an honest debate about that if we are going to be serious about asking the Parole Board to consider paroling prisoners, giving some reasonable expectation to the prisoner that if they behave they will be rewarded by being positively considered for parole subject to the limitations set down by the judge.

We would then undermine completely the whole objective of trying to get people to aspire, I suppose, to release. If that is the way we want to go as a parliament, let us have that debate. What we have at the moment, though, is a situation where repeated refusals to accept the Parole Board or overriding the Parole Board's decision actually undermine the Parole Board—not individually, but it makes them surely ask the question, 'What's the point of us doing it, if we have no idea what it is that the executive consider that we might be missing, that if we were privy to we would also agree and would not be recommending a parole?'

It gives us no guidance, the Parole Board is saying, to be able to review the situation and not release the person. At this stage it is ticking all the boxes; it is doing all the things under the act it has to take into account. The non-parole period has expired, then they say, 'What are we to do? Going through this exercise is a waste of our time and resources if every time we do it this particular prisoner is going to be rejected as a result of the overturning power of the executive.' We do need to look at that.

The opposition has considered a situation where the executive power is retained but, in the event of there being an overturning, subject to there being confidential information against public policy to release, it is reasonable for the executive to give reasons back to the Parole Board and/or the public as to why it has acted to overturn. On balance, we would support the retention of executive council power in respect of refusing parole, but publication of reasons is a way we think would better cover that.

As I understand it, the Hon. Ann Bressington has foreshadowed amendments to completely remove executive power, and she would have a formula where, if there was an indication by the executive that it wanted to resist a parole recommendation, it would make that application back to the Supreme Court, and the matter could be dealt with at a judicial level for any determination.

In short, there are aspects of this bill which are well received by the opposition, which are meritorious and which we would support, but there are a number of amendments. I think I have covered these in the debate, but they will be clear when we go through each of the amendments in committee, and we hope that the minister will look favourably at them between the houses.

There is a final matter I make comment on. During the course of debate the minister interjected—disorderly as that is, but nevertheless he was getting excited about his excellent reign as the Minister for Correctional Services—and suggested that no prisoner had escaped from prison while he had been minister. In the context of someone scaling the wall, cutting the wires or digging a tunnel, that is probably right, but what he omitted to acknowledge was that at least three prisoners have escaped custody and, in fact, been charged with escaping custody, while he has been the minister.

Just as a refresher, the minister might recall that Anthony Waye-Hill and Renald Jackamara from the Port Augusta gaol had escaped, in that, having left the prison, they refused to return. There were some days before they were recovered. April 2011 was the time that they were facing court, being charged with escaping from custody, so it happened in the preceding days. Secondly, probably one more famous, of course, was the escape from custody, I think, three times while in transit from a prison to the court—

Mr Goldsworthy: Drew Claude Griffiths.

Ms CHAPMAN: —of Mr Griffiths, Drew Claude Griffiths, the member for Kavel reminds me. He seemed to be almost Houdini-like in his capacity to be able to escape the clutches of the security. I think, if I recall correctly at the time, Jan McMahon, who is the secretary of the public service union, was outraged about the ratio for—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Just a minute. In particular, she was concerned about a failure to comply with guidelines for prisoners to remain handcuffed.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That is Frances Nelson you are talking about, not Jan McMahon.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, Jan McMahon.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You don't know what you are talking about. You have got it wrong again.

Ms CHAPMAN: No.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, it is Frances Nelson.

Ms CHAPMAN: It wasn't Frances Nelson. Jan McMahon complained about how that put the occupational health and safety of PSA workers at risk, as a result of these occurrences. So, it is puzzling to me that the minister seems to have forgotten those, especially as he would have been reminded, as the member for Stuart, in his assiduous research, located for me a page out of this year's budget which identifies a number of highlights and so on for the 2011-12 year.

Under the category of Performance Indicators for the correctional services department, the estimated result for the 2010-11 year—bear in mind this is published in about June each year; probably prepared in May, but it is a few months ago now—actually details the number of escapes per annum. From secure, which is (c) or (d), there was an identification of two and they are identified as one escapee from the Parole Board G4S, and the other was one escapee from the Royal Adelaide Hospital hospital escort. Then, from the number of escapes from open—I assume that to be a less secure facility—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Open means open.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just a moment; not entirely. Here the description is also for two escapes and it says, 'Two escapes from minimal security area (Mulga Unit) of Port Augusta Prison.' So, the document itself tells us that the record of the minister is not unblemished, as he asserted, but, nevertheless, is one which he should be reminded of because of the importance of making sure that they not only do their job properly—difficult as it is at times—but that they also make sure that they tell the whole truth to us here in the parliament about what they are doing. With that brief contribution, I will look forward to committee.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:25): I am pleased to speak to this particular piece of legislation before the house, namely, the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. I understand that the Minister for Correctional Services announced some reforms to the parole laws about 12 months ago, on 28 September 2010. The bill was introduced on 8 June 2011 and, as outlined by the member for Bragg, it proposes a number of changes to both prison and parole management.

It is my understanding that we have received feedback on the bill from the Law Society of South Australia, the Parole Board, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and the Police Association. The member for Bragg has comprehensively covered the content of the bill and flagged where the opposition has some issues, where we support it, and where we were looking to move some amendments.

I do not intend to cover everything that the member for Bragg has spoken to, but there are some points in relation to the management of prisons I would like to highlight; the first is about the centralisation of responsibility to the chief executive officer. I understand that the bill proposes a series of amendments to the current act to remove the responsibility from prison managers and vest that responsibility in the chief executive of the department.

Under section 7 of the Correctional Services Act 1982, the chief executive may delegate any 'powers, functions, duties or responsibilities vested in, imposed on or delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to any employee of the department'. Accordingly, whether these changes lead to more or less centralised management will only be clear once the delegations are finalised and promulgated, if you like.

I understand that another section of the bill relates to prisoner allowances. It proposes that responsibility for setting and reviewing the rate of prisoner allowances, remuneration for work, and bonuses for positive behaviour, be transferred from the minister to the chief executive. I understand that prisoner allowances are about $12 a week and, from information that I understand to be correct, it has not been increased for the past 20 years. It is also proposed that the chief executive assume responsibility for the setting of payment rates for outstanding victim of crime levies.

I know the member for Bragg has spoken to this issue—that is, payments to prisoners from released prisoners—but it does not necessarily do any harm to canvass it again. The bill proposes that prisoners who have been released in the last 12 months must seek the permission of the chief executive to deposit money into the accounts of another prisoner.

The next aspect that the bill looks to is that of the provision of items of personal use or consumption. I understand that clause 18 of the bill proposes that the chief executive be empowered to set prices for the sale of personal items for personal use or consumption such as it reflects the cost of selling the items. Any profit made is placed in a prisoner amenity account for the provision of amenities to prisoners.

I also understand there are some proposed changes concerning the restriction on visitors to prisoners. Under these proposals there are four points: a visitor must provide evidence of identity; a visitor must not touch a prisoner unless it is part of a program approved by the chief executive; a released prisoner must not visit another prisoner within 12 months of release; and a prisoner who has been convicted of a sexual offence must not be visited by a person under the age of 16 without approval from the chief executive.

I understand another issue that the bill looks to address is letters sent by prisoners. Currently, section 33(7) of the act provides that letters sent by prisoners to the following entities cannot be opened by correctional services staff for inspection: letters to the Ombudsman, to members of parliament, a visiting tribunal, an inspector of the correctional institution or a legal practitioner at the practitioner's business address. I also understand it is proposed that the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner be included in that list of entities.

Also in relation to prisoner communication, the bill proposes to provide formal powers to the chief executive to monitor the communications of prisoners, except where it is between the prisoner and their legal representative, the Ombudsman, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, or a person of a designated class by the chief executive. The chief executive must authorise any monitoring in advance. Any information that is intercepted that reveals information about an offence must be referred to the police commissioner. As highlighted by the member for Bragg, the bill defines communication as speech, music or any other sounds, data, text, visual images, signals, or any combination of the above.

The bill looks at a number of other measures in relation to prison management. One particular issue is penalties for introducing controlled substances and prohibited items, and the bill proposes to increase offence penalties for introducing controlled substances and prohibited items into prison from two years to five years. Another provision is to supply a prisoner's health information between departments, and clause 58 of the bill compels the chief executives responsible for the administration of the Health Care Act 2008 and the Mental Health Act 2009 to disclose such personal information about a prisoner as is reasonably required for the treatment, care and rehabilitation of the prisoner.

Another matter the member for Bragg highlighted is in relation to the extension of search powers to all institutional land. As outlined, that includes surrounding areas outside the confines of the prison, being car parks and similar areas. Another provision within the bill is release of the prisoner for questioning by the police. Currently, if a prisoner is suspected of having committed an offence or has been charged with an offence, the manager of a correctional institution must, at the request of the police, release the prisoner into the custody of that member of the police force for the purposes of investigation, obtaining evidence or identifying the prisoner as the person who committed the offence. The bill proposes to add an additional category of the prisoner 'having knowledge or information that might assist in the prevention or investigation of an offence'.

I will not go into the issues in relation to management of parole and the like. I am fully aware that the member for Bragg has canvassed that comprehensively, but, given that the bill is open and that we have spoken in the house today in relation to the condolence motion to Justice Mullighan, we have covered the issue of rehabilitation—and I know that the bill talks about rehabilitation of our prisoners.

A number of people who work in our prison system live in my electorate. The Mobilong Prison is just to the east of my electorate, in the member for Hammond's electorate, which is not too far in distance from the electorate of Kavel's eastern boundary. I talk to those correctional services officers about different issues that they raise. I know quite a number of police, obviously, in and around the state (not necessarily in my electorate), and they talk to me about offenders, rehabilitation and the like, because rehabilitation is one of the most important aspects of the correctional services regime, for many reasons.

The minister no doubt will have some answers to this, but rehabilitation is very important for those people within our community who have no fear of prison. I have had some third party involvement in relation to this, and I will just cite an example. One of my neighbour's nephews got in trouble with the law and ended up receiving a custodial sentence for his offending. He served that sentence, came out, reoffended and went back into prison. I got talking to my neighbour about that. I will not name the person, but I said, 'Doesn't he have any fear of prison?' And the answer was no.

Obviously, if a person is not fearful of going to prison, that is not a disincentive to offending and reoffending. I think that the vast majority of the population around the nation holds the prospect of going to prison in a fearful way. I can tell members that I certainly do, and I think that the vast majority of people in this nation do, but there is a percentage of the community who do not. Rehabilitation has to be the answer, I think, for them not to reoffend. There may be other answers, and the minister, I hope, can expand on some of those answers, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of the house.

I have talked to some of my constituents, who highlight some issues. For example, people are convicted and they are sent to Mobilong and they do their time; they carry out their sentences. They are released out into society, they reoffend and they are sent back to prison; and, when they are walking into prison, they are high-fiving their mates. They are actually saying, 'How're you going? Good to see you. How's it been back in here?' It is just a big catch-up.

Obviously, as I said, prison holds no fear for those people, and it is a bit of a reuniting with some of the prison population they have developed a relationship with. Obviously, rehabilitation takes a number of paths through the correctional services regime. I understand that the Cadell facility is regarded as a low-security facility where farming activity is undertaken, and that obviously assists in the rehabilitation of those prisoners.

I live in the north-western part of the Hills, where I grew up. During my childhood, for one reason or another we would drive down Grand Junction Road past the Yatala prison, and when I was a young boy I remember that there was a big fence running along Grand Junction Road, out into the paddock and behind the prison, and some of the prison population would undertake farm work at the prison. Obviously, significant changes have occurred with management at the prison and the way that the prisoners are dealt with and managed because none of that farm work is undertaken anymore.

I am aware of the riots that took place in that prison some years ago, when they set fire to the old prison block and it was burnt out; I remember driving past and seeing the burnt-out shell of the old stone building set back off the road. After that rioting took place there were considerable changes to the management regime in Yatala. Further improvements—higher, more solid walls were built around a larger area of the prison ground, and some other facilities to the west of the original old cell block—were constructed.

The minister might like to give me a history lesson on the reason that farming activity ceased at Yatala prison. I know that they had a dairy, they milked cows, they provided fresh vegetables to the kitchen in the prison, they provided milk for the prison, and I think they even sold the excess milk into the market. That was part of the work the prisoners undertook, and it may well have helped them in their rehabilitation when they were released, as they had some skills and, arguably, could go and work on a farm property as relatively skilled farm workers.

I think I have covered all the points I wanted to make on the second reading. The member for Bragg highlighted the fact that the minister has not had an unblemished record in his role as Minister for Correctional Services. There has been a number of incidences that have clearly been embarrassing to the government and to the minister but, as highlighted, the opposition is prepared to support some of the bill. We will move quite a number of amendments, and we look forward to the minister listening to the arguments on those amendments and supporting them.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:43): I have a few things that I want to put on the record regarding the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. Regarding prisoner allowances, I agree that the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Correctional Services would be well placed to make decisions regarding prisoner allowances, remuneration for work, and bonuses for positive behaviour. I note that the weekly allowance of $11.70 has not changed over the past 20 years, although the cost of basic items has gone up many times.

Regarding visitor identification, I noted during my visit to the remand centre a couple of weeks ago that a new biometric enrolment system is being installed where, along with 100 points of identification required initially, a retina scan and/or a fingerprint will be taken and stored on the system. After the initial enrolment, photo ID only will be required. All visitors are required to place all personal items onto an X-ray machine, using the same equipment as the airports have, as well as the drug detection systems, where a swab is taken from the clothing. I see this as a very positive step forward.

Regarding the penalties for introducing controlled substances and prohibited items, given that it costs around $67,000 a year per prisoner to keep them in prison—and I believe it is up to about $81,000 a year to keep them in the remand centre—increasing the penalty by an extra three years will cost around $201,000 per prisoner and will put more pressure on our very full prisons.

Perhaps, once the trial at the remand centre with the biometric enrolment system is underway, that could be a better way of maybe preventing more drugs getting through, or even the possibility of X-ray machines. I believe the X-ray machines that we have seen on TV are not being used yet because they are quite intrusive, and it is more like seeing through your clothing rather than just seeing what drugs are in your possession, but perhaps the investment would be better used to stop the drugs getting in rather than penalising the prisoners, which in fact costs us more money to keep them in prison.

Regarding parole management, I wonder what arrangements the Department for Correctional Services or the Parole Board have in place to notify Centrelink when a person has breached their parole or is taken into prison. An article in the Sunday Mail on 11 September states:

Several convicted criminals have told the Sunday Mail restricting or even cutting off payments would severely affect the ability of fugitives to evade police. One offender who evaded police for more than a year after breaching his parole conditions said that Centrelink payments were instrumental in his freedom. 'I can tell you they were the only thing that kept me going,' said the man. 'If I did not have cash going into my account during that period I probably would have surrendered within a month. It is actually quite bizarre. You have one government department actually assisting you to stay on the run from another government department.'

Is there any way that we can try to fix this through the amendments that we are making now? I believe that section 85C(d) in the act would give the freedom to pass on the information, but I am just wondering whether that is being done.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:47): I will be brief because I think other members on this side have covered the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011 very well in a comprehensive manner. The one part of the bill that I want to reflect on is the extension of the search powers to all institutional land.

I just want to reflect on the September 2006 announcement of the Labor government which came via The Advertiser to establish a 760-cell men's prison and a 150-cell women's prison at Mobilong near Murray Bridge. This proposal was a $411 million proposal, and I remember coming into the parliament, and I had already seen it in the newspaper that morning and taken a call from the Mayor of Murray Bridge because neither I nor the mayor nor the community of Murray Bridge and surrounding areas had been consulted about this proposal—a major proposal.

Over $400 million was to be invested in Mobilong, and I can understand if the government did not want to tell the local member—that is up to them—but they did not even advise the mayor of what they were about to do and everyone reads about in the paper. That is the way this government works—lack of consultation; no consultation. Would the member for West Torrens like to wake up in the morning and realise that a corrections facility—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Sibbons): Point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the member wishes to make a grievance about a decision taken by the government in 2006, by all means. This is the 2011 amendment bill. Please speak to that.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, and I am speaking in relation to the extension of search powers on institutional land, and this would have been a major institution on corrections land at Murray Bridge, and that was what the proposal was—to build this high security institution. It would have had a supermax section of the gaol as well, and there were three levels of security incorporated into that, as I understand it. The council said in the QED report, which they put up, that it was a tortuous process for the council.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I rise on a point of order: relevance. The member is talking about a capital infrastructure program that is not being proceeded with and is not being debated in this bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER: I would agree with the minister that the member for Hammond should be addressing issues within the bill. However, the member may wish to discuss points of concern, but I would suggest that he gets back to the major topic of the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I note that it is a tortuous subject for the government, but this is exactly how the people of my electorate reacted to the lack of consultation. What I was referring to was the extension of search powers on all institutional land. This is something that would have happened if the development at Mobilong had gone ahead. It would have been in regard to all of the land identified in the proclamation under section 18.1.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I rise on a point of order. 'What would happen if it had proceeded' were his words. He is talking about a hypothetical construction that is not in the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise on a point of order. The minister is filibustering by taking irrelevant points of order to try to pad the debate out until 6 o'clock. It is outrageous. Let the member speak.

The ACTING SPEAKER: I dismiss your point of order, member for Davenport, but the minister's point of order is still relevant. I will ask the member for Hammond to continue on addressing the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I note the government and the minister's embarrassment on the subject I have brought up about the lack of consultation with the community. I just hope that the government makes the carriage of the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011 far more successful than its defunct 2006 proposal for the new Mobilong Prison.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Hammond, we eventually got there. If the minister speaks he closes the debate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I want to thank all contributors to the debate. The government has listened intently to the member for Bragg's amendments, given the fact that today is the first day I have seen those amendments; not through any conspiracy, it is just that she lodged them the day that I left on a trade mission. We will consider those in the upper house and I would ask the opposition for some latitude to give the government an opportunity to consider those.

I understand that there were other amendments moved by the Hon. Iain Evans that the government will accept. I point out to the member for Hammond that the only people who went to the last election talking about opening a new prison without consulting with anyone was the opposition, and the shadow spokesperson was promptly fired after he announced that on 891. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 17:56 the house adjourned until Wednesday 28 September 2011 at 11:00.


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