HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PAROLE LAWS AND PRACTICES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:47): I move:

That this house requests the state government to conduct a review of the laws and practices relating to parole.

Obviously, I would not be calling for a review if I thought I had the details and answers relating to this issue. We have a select committee (which I chair) which is looking at the causes of crime and anti-social behaviour, and how to deal with that, but realistically, I do not believe that select committee will have enough time to look at the specific aspect of parole.

I want to say at the outset that what I am doing here is not a criticism of the Parole Board or its chair, Frances Nelson QC, but I think that—and I note the point just made by the member for Frome in relation to that patient assistance scheme—government programs should be reviewed frequently, and I think it is time that the parole system in South Australia was looked at closely. I can only touch on a few points here.

What prompted my particular interest was what happened in Victoria following the tragic murder of Jill Meagher. It was revealed that they had an inquiry into the parole system, and there was some criticism of the parole organisation there and its staff. But, in fairness to them, they were dealing with something like 10,000 cases a year and had their staff reduced, and there was no way in the world that they could possibly give that important issue their full attention—with 10,000 cases a year and reduced staffing, it is not possible.

There was argument about whether Jill Meagher would have been murdered if the parole situation was different. If you look at that particular murderer, he had a track record of doing horrendous things. If he did not commit a serious crime at that particular point in time involving Jill Meagher, there was a good chance he would have, even when his parole had been completed.

I will just state a few basic facts about the Parole Board and, as I say, this is not a criticism of them. The Parole Board is an independent statutory body, established in 1970. Its role is to assess the risk and determine whether to grant, deny, terminate or revoke parole and to set appropriate conditions for parole release. It has nine members, including a chairperson. It has people from various backgrounds—a former police officer, a person of Aboriginal descent, a qualified social worker, and so the list goes on.

As I said, it has a range of functions, and this is a very demanding task—to consider applications for release on parole from prisoners serving sentences of five years or more, consider applications from prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and whether or not to make a recommendation to the Governor in Executive Council for release on parole. I will just dwell on that point for a moment. I do not believe it is appropriate for politicians, at any level, to be involved or have a say in whether or not someone is granted parole or released. I will give an example. It is not quite in the category of parole but it does impact on this issue of MPs getting involved in the administration of justice.

It happened to someone from my area, Hawthorndene, before I was born. This particular person was described by locals as 'simple'. In today's terminology, we would say 'intellectually challenged' or 'disadvantaged'. That person was convicted of a murder, which is a serious crime. The judge and jury recommended mercy but the politicians of the day, through Executive Council, decided that that person should be hanged, and he was. That is just one example of where politicians get involved in deciding outcomes. I question the desirability of Executive Council interfering in the parole system.

If someone has been before the court, has been punished and the Parole Board (which is set up as an independent body) believes that person is able to enter the community again, then I do not think it is up to politicians to interfere with that. We have seen quite a bit of that in recent years where there is almost a competition, if you like, to see how tough the government can be in respect of someone who is coming to the end of their sentence, usually for murder. I do not think it is a good practice and I think that is one aspect of the current arrangements that really needs to be looked at and, I believe, removed.

The challenges facing the Parole Board, as I say, are enormous. They can only do the job if they have sufficient staff. Accordingly, I wrote recently to the Minister for Correctional Services (Hon. Michael O'Brien), whom I regard as a very good minister, but I got a letter this morning in answer to that question which raises some concerns for me. In fairness, I will quote the key paragraphs. He says, 'Thank you for your correspondence,' and then goes on:

Community corrections officers working within the department's various community correctional centres undertake a number of roles including, but not limited to, the supervision of parolees. For instance, they may also be responsible for the management of offenders under supervision for a number of other community based sanctions such as home detention, intensive bail, bail, community service, suspended sentences, and those being supervised in relation to mental impairment orders (on licence).

This is the sentence that I found quite concerning:

Given these factors, it is not possible to provide specific details regarding case loads for parole officers and how many parole officers are employed by the department.

Obviously, this would have been prepared for the minister. What the department is saying is that it does not know how many parole officers are employed in the department: that does raise some concerns. As I say, the minister qualified, prior to that sentence, by saying that they were engaged in a range of activities, but one would assume that the Department for Correctional Services would know how many parole officers it employed. That is a matter I will follow up with the minister, but I find that somewhat concerning.

The fundamental responsibility, I guess, of the Parole Board, as indicated earlier, is to ensure that the community, as far as possible, is protected and that people are not released who may pose a threat to society. That raises a whole lot of related issues. One is that our system of justice has an element of punishment, and one understands that. The separation from the community is meant to be the punishment. There are not meant to be other punishments on top of that. Your loss of liberty is your punishment. There are a lot of people who want revenge in a range of ways, but that is not what our system is about, or should be about.

Currently, our prison population—this is the latest advice from the head of corrections a month or so ago—70 per cent of inmates are functionally illiterate, they do not have basic literacy competencies, so one would question how these people could possibly gain meaningful employment. It will not be easy for them. One would hope and expect that whilst these people were incarcerated they would improve their literacy, numeracy and other related skills. That is happening to a certain extent. I notice in the annual report from the Department for Correctional Services, the percentage of inmates undertaking educational programs has increased in recent times, something in the order of about 60 per cent to 66 per cent, and that is just going on memory.

The emphasis on rehabilitation needs to be strengthened. We have programs for sex offenders. The Mount Gambier prison seems to be the place where most of them are incarcerated, and there are over 100 of them down there, but there are issues in relation to the rehabilitation these people undertake before they are released into the community. Some of these prisoners correspond with me. I do not condone what they have done, but I think it is worth listening to what they say about the system. They indicate to me that there are a range of issues with the availability of programs, sexual behaviour programs, that might help them change their behaviour, and I think that is something that needs to be looked at.

In Western Australia it is possible for a sex offender to be on a special program. Some people use the term chemical castration, but it is a hormonal-type program to reduce the risk of reoffending. I do not believe that is offered in South Australia, if it is I am not able to find out about it, but I think that is just one example of the whole parole system, the rehabilitation and so on, that needs to be looked at. There are very strict conditions in Western Australia for people who want to access that chemical treatment so that they are less likely to reoffend.

South Australia has quite a good record in terms of recidivism, good in the sense of less released prisoners reoffending, but there is still a challenge to improve on that. I do not want to transgress into what the select committee is doing, but one of the main focal points needs to be on reducing the number of people who are being incarcerated through a range of measures, and that will be canvassed by the select committee in its report.

I will just come back to this point about the involvement of the Executive Council. I am told by people that there are prisoners who have served their complete time but still have to wait for Executive Council to sign off. One example I am aware of involves a chap who murdered his wife because she was having a sexual relationship with some bloke. I do not condone what he did. He served 25 years and has been a model prisoner but, despite recommendations from the Parole Board that he be released, as far as I know he is still incarcerated.

Where the process becomes a little bit off key is that he was required to do a course on how to respect women. Well, killing his wife on the spur of the moment, apparently, I do not consider is related in any specific sense to respect for women. It was anger, hostility, directed at his wife because, I guess, in his view she was unfaithful to him. As I say, I do not condone what he did. We have this anomaly once again of waiting on politicians to decide whether someone who has served a very long sentence, who has been a model prisoner and done all the things that have been required whilst in prison, still languishes there simply because we have this political interference arrangement.

Mr Pengilly: That was Rann.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, it still exists, it exists right at this very moment. I know that we are going to be leading up to an election—we all know that—and I trust that we do not get into an auction about who can be tough on crime. What we need is to be effective in relation to crime, particularly to reduce the incidence.

I put this motion up, but I do not have all the answers, and I am not in a position to have all the answers. What I am urging the government to do is get some highly qualified, appropriately qualified person to have a look at the parole system—is it the best that it can be, can it be improved?—and have a look in particular at the involvement of politicians in the process, especially for those who have served a life sentence.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (12:02): I rise to indicate that the government and I support this excellent motion from the member for Fisher. The member for Fisher initially referred to recent events in Victoria, and members will be aware that in May 2013 the Victorian government commissioned former High Court Justice Ian Callinan to carry out a review of the adult parole board's operations in that state. Mr Callinan completed his review and provided his report to the Victorian government in August. The report contains 23 measures, many of which the Victorian government has already commenced to implement through administrative or legislative changes.

The South Australian government resolved in September to examine the Callinan review to see if there were any recommendations that are applicable to the parole system in South Australia. The government is undertaking an internal review and a comparative analysis of the parole process in South Australia. This review will include a brief discussion paper that hopes to address the following: a distillation of the major themes identified by Mr Callinan and their relationship to his conclusion and recommendations, and a comparative analysis with the legislative and practice framework within which the South Australian parole system and the Parole Board operates. This may include interaction between the board, Correctional Services, SAPOL, and the broader criminal justice system.

The government intends to use this opportunity to identify areas for potential improvement. The government has confidence in the South Australian Parole Board and believes that many of the issues identified in Victoria are simply not applicable here. However, community safety is a paramount consideration, and for this reason we are committed to constantly evaluating the laws and practices relating to parole, and for that reason the government supports the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

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