HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-11-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 November 2017.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:03): We left off at a discussion about managed access systems and mobile phone jamming in prisons and how that is used to stop people from smuggling drugs into prison. This is in light of the alarming statistics in relation to the number of intravenous drug users in prisons and also the reports we have of the number of users of other drugs—things that you smoke or ingest rather than things that you inject.

To speak a bit more about the problem of drugs in our prisons, over the past five years there have been almost 3,200 drug incidents in South Australian prisons and, during the same period, almost 100 alcohol-related incidents. Prisons are a unique environment with a concentration of people found guilty of drug offences or a history of drug use. In 2012, a total of 37 per cent of correctional facility entrants into Australia reported using methamphetamine, whilst 50 per cent of inmates reported using cannabis.

Reported illicit drug use rates by inmates are significantly higher than rates of reported illicit drug use by the general population, and drug and drug/alcohol substitutes are highly valuable currency in our correctional system. Given these unique considerations, people who work in the prison system must be supported by high standards of occupational health and safety. If prison officers or staff are under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work, they expose their colleagues by significantly increasing an already wide range of workplace risks.

The stressful prison environment can also put officers and staff susceptible to addiction at further risk. Further, prisons can become a breeding ground for members of organised crime groups, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs, providing these groups with a potential source of new recruits for drugs and other crime. We have put some ideas on the table about how we think best to deal with this. It is good to see, at least on one of these scores, that the government has moved as part of this bill to put in place that which we put down as a policy in August.

Essentially, we said that we would introduce workplace testing of prison officers, staff and contractors for alcohol and illegal drugs and that we would legislate to ban outlaw motorcycle gang members from visiting prisons. The difference between our position and the government's position is in relation to how drug testing is going to work in prisons. The government believes that the police model should be used, where drug testing is only undertaken in areas of high risk, whether that be post a high-risk incident or where somebody is suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

We think that there should be a random element to that. We believe that we should have random drug testing of prison officers. The reason I think that is because the broader corporate and private sector has done that for a long time. I know of many workplaces in the mining sector, in the manufacturing sector, anywhere where there is a high risk that drug use can inhibit the ability of someone to safely conduct their work, where random drug testing takes place. It is important, given the risks I just outlined, because of the work that prison officers do in a very high-stress and high-risk environment dealing with sometimes violent offenders or people who have not adjusted properly to normal social mores.

Prison officers do form a class of worker who would benefit from random drug testing so that we can weed out the people who are making life more difficult and more risky for the prison officers who are trying to do their job. I am sure that is the vast majority of them, but nevertheless I think we need to put that in place. I understand that the amendments allow for random drug testing, but that is not at this stage something that the government is proposing. We certainly welcome the government adopting our measure in that regard. Also, hopefully we can work together to bring more of the policy we have put on the table into action in regard to changes to these bills.

Before I wrap up, since I first started this speech some correspondence has come to me around some comments made by Frances Nelson QC, who is the Presiding Member of the Parole Board in South Australia. She has a number of issues she would like to put on the record in relation to clause 21 and changing the reporting period for Parole Board reports about life imprisonment or prisoners who are in prison for life. She says that intervals longer than the 12-month function would be appropriate. She has issues in relation to section 68(4) and she says:

…that opens a legal challenge where, for example, someone is imprisoned for Breach of Conditions, they might well argue that they were either incapable or unwilling to accept such Conditions, and therefore they are not bound by them, and could not be lawfully punished for breaching them.

I think that is something we will have to explore in committee. Frances Nelson opposes the amendment to section 77(3) of the act. She says:

I strongly believe that a person should not be denied natural justice. A hearing should be permitted to go ahead in the absence of the prisoner, but only if the prisoner refuses to attend or consents to the hearing taking place in his/her absence. The Parole Board's decisions are currently subject to judicial review, and I think that denying a prisoner natural justice could well lead to more applications to the Supreme Court. In any event, interviewing a prisoner has proved, in South Australia, to inform Parole Board members more effectively and leads to more informed and, in my view, better decisions.

She also does not support the proposed amendment in relation to section 77A to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner. It seems that there is a bit of a theme there that we are going to have to explore. She says that it seems to usurp the current function of the Parole Board and that those matters are routinely taken into account in assessing a prisoner's suitability for release.

Again, there are a number of questions we will go through in the committee stage. We have this week, and the upper house will have one or, very likely, two sitting weeks to get this done in the other place. I am very keen to see this bill progressed. That is why, depending on the committee stage today, we may be looking at some amendments between the houses, but only to try to firm up and improve that which the government is seeking to do. I am very much looking forward to attempting to get this bill through both houses of parliament so that it can become law because we agree that there is a lot of good that this bill seeks to do.

There is some good there that undertakes to do what we have put on the table to do as part of our policy process. Hopefully, that leads to better outcomes for people who are in prison, better outcomes once people leave our prison and better outcomes for everybody who works in the system, hoping to make it a more efficient, more effective place and also to reduce the rates of reoffending, which are and should continue to be the benchmark by which we measure the success of our prison system.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (12:11): I rise to speak on some of the reforms contained within the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 that will have a range of positive impacts on our corrections system. This bill aims to ensure that the department can provide the best possible level of prisoner and offender management in line with national and international best practice. The new objects and guiding principles provide guidance by ensuring that community safety is the paramount consideration in all decisions, prioritising the rights of victims and promoting evidence-based treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration.

The effective case management of offenders based on a risk/needs assessment and the consideration of individual circumstances, including culture and family, is fundamental. It provides offenders with positive rehabilitation opportunities and the tools to develop prosocial lifestyles, improving their chances of successful reintegration when released from custody. I understand that the department already operates very much with those guiding principles in mind. To give one example, having visited the Women's Prison I know that there has been a strong focus on infrastructure development programs to aid the rehabilitation of female offenders.

The construction of Ruby Unit at the Adelaide Women's Prison involved 10 women as part of the construction team. These women have obtained accredited training as part of their work. Further, TAFE training has been made available to women through the delivery of accredited training in barista work at the community centre and food handling skills in the kitchen. All the activities at the Adelaide Women's Prison, including landscaping, construction of pathways and the new healing circle, have engaged women in work and learning opportunities to prepare them for future release and to reduce their risk of reoffending.

A range of crime-focused intervention is also being delivered to enable women to address issues such as drug and alcohol misuse and addiction, anger management and other forms of offending. These programs all focus on cognitive and behavioural skill development. In addition, women accommodated at the Adelaide Pre-release Centre now have an expanded opportunity to engage in a range of employment as well as processes to support them to establish family and cultural connections. These women also have access to rehabilitation programs in both the prison and the community and are able to participate in reintegration opportunities—for example, work or training—within the community.

The bill also embeds the principles of integrity, accountability and professionalism to further support the competence and proficiency of staff. The government is absolutely committed to ensuring the integrity of the correctional system and the highest standards of employee conduct. The introduction of a more thorough recruitment process for new employees, and drug and alcohol testing of department staff, aims to uphold the safety and security of our correctional system.

Also contained within the bill are provisions relating to the inspection of prisons which have been strengthened to facilitate a more independent, contemporary and transparent inspection scheme. The amendments set out the functions and responsibilities of official inspectors and further embed the principles of accountability and integrity into operational practice.

Further amendments support the protection and use of information. New provisions ensure that biometric data and certain institutional security details are protected. Other amendments enhance individual privacy and prevent the disclosure of victim information. To further protect victims of crime, the bill provides for the automatic suppression of victims' names where a victim makes a civil claim against a prisoner. The bill also supports the Information Sharing Guidelines by improving access to information in appropriate circumstances.

Appropriate release of certain information will create greater transparency and accountability and greatly support the families of prisoners and offenders in times of crisis. It also seeks to improve information sharing with external justice agencies. This is an important change that will enhance community safety and national security, allowing justice agencies greater ability to gather evidence and work together to prevent ongoing offending. It allows for intelligence information and evidence to be provided to certain law enforcement and national security agencies for use in criminal investigations, prosecutions and in matters relating to corruption in public administration.

Finally, the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 amends part 7 of the act, which deals with prisoner compensation funds. Where a prisoner has received funds as a result of a compensation claim, any amount held to the credit of a prisoner at the conclusion of the quarantine period will be divided equally between the Victims of Crime Fund and the prisoner's resettlement account to be used for rehabilitation and reintegration at the conclusion of the prisoner's sentence. This bill is a fundamental component of the government's important 10 by 20 reforms to reduce the rates of reoffending, and it focuses on strengthening the safety and security of our prison system. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health, Minister Assisting the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (12:17): I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this bill, which is a very important piece of legislation for reforming our corrections system, particularly the member for Torrens for her contribution and the member for Schubert for his very lengthy and detailed contribution. You know when the lectern comes out that we are going to be in for a significant time.

I was very glad to see that when debate resumed today the lectern was not brought back out and we were able to speedily proceed through to the committee stage of the debate. I will not even attempt to try to answer all the issues that the member for Schubert raised in his second reading contribution because I know that he wants to raise a number of them in committee, but I thank him for indicating the opposition's general support for the thrust and objectives that the government is pursuing in corrections reform, in particular the 10 by 20 reforms which we think are very important.

This has come about through a lot of work over the past year. I particularly give credit to my predecessor as the minister for correctional services, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, who really kicked off our looking at our corrections system again and the strategy behind it. He started this process, whereby we now have the 10 by 20 programs underway, and this legislation forms a significant part of those reforms working hand in hand.

I would also like to thank a number of key stakeholders in this area who have indicated their support and have from time to time given some suggestions in different areas in which they would like to see the bill improved. Generally, across the board, there is support for the direction in which the government is heading—this direction—from people such as the Public Service Association, the Legal Services Commissioner, the Legal Services Commission, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, the Parole Board, OARS Community Transitions, and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption. I thank all of them and others for their contributions and consideration.

I would also like to thank all the people behind the scenes who have worked very hard in the department of corrections on these reforms over a long period of time, particularly the Chief Executive, David Brown; Deputy Chief Executive, Jackie Bray; Director of Governance and Executive Support, Jacqueline Casey; and Kaylene Douglas, from Governance and Executive Services, as well as Julia Sumner and Gemma Paech from my office for their hard work.

In summary, the government believes that this bill is a landmark reform that will improve the accountability of our prison system, renew the focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending rates in South Australia, raise the professionalism of our Correctional Services staff, and improve our security and also our accountability. I commend it to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I raise one matter at this stage on clause 1 and it relates to the consultation on this bill. I inform the minister that the briefing of 20 October 2017, at which the chief executive of Corrections, Mr David Brown, made himself available and, as the minister has indicated, a member of his staff to support inquiries, was followed up with some material that was subsequently provided.

Let me say this—and it is not exclusive to corrections and corrections bills, although I did have quite a bit to do with the last major area of legislative reform in this area—when I or anyone on the opposition has a briefing, we expect full and frank responses and accurate information. I do not expect, and I do not think anyone on this side of the house expects, members of the public sector who are not employed in the minister's office to provide responses in relation to policy if it has not been initiated by them—that is a matter for government.

If they are unable or unwilling to provide information on request that relates to a policy decision then I expect, at the very least, a response that indicates, 'That is not a matter for us. I have not recommended it.' If it is the CEO who is providing that information, that would be a matter for the representative from the minister's office to take to the minister or provide that information as they see fit. What has increasingly occurred, and occurred again in this example, is that at the briefing we had an indication of widespread consultation and that key players were comfortable and/or endorsing the bill.

What we find on an almost daily basis now, and it applies to this bill, is that in fact that is not accurate. There can be prior consultation or an invitation to stakeholders to make a contribution to areas of reform that are needed in Corrections because it is a comprehensive area of reform, and it is another matter entirely as to whether they have been consulted on the bill when drafted. When I have a briefing from any government agency—and it is yours in this case, minister—I expect accurate information to be provided. When I am told that there is approval and support given from key stakeholders, I do not expect to then go back to them and find that that is not the case.

Ms Frances Nelson QC is the Parole Board chair in this state. She is clearly a key stakeholder employed by the government, accountable to the parliament, with an area of responsibility that is, frankly, a very difficult one. I do not envy her at all in the task that she undertakes, but I do recognise her decades of involvement as a leading counsel in this state, and as chair of the Parole Board she has some wise contribution to make.

When in fact we go back to her to ascertain if there are any concerns and there is a list of areas of concern and identified areas of opposition to the government's decision to progress something, I find that quite insulting—to us as members of the parliament and to the opposition, from whom the government is seeking its support for these bills. In this case, it shows contempt for someone who is an appointed officer, the chair of the Parole Board, who frankly deserves more respect. That is what I want to say in respect of the consultation process.

In my experience in dealing with Mr Brown as the chief executive officer of Corrections which, again, is not an enviable position—frankly, it is not easy—clearly, he has to deal with major areas of management of not only his staff but obviously those who are incarcerated in the prison system. It is fair to say that in dealing with disorderly conduct, across to riotous behaviour, across to further criminal conduct, the use of and availability of drugs in prisons are all things that are difficult areas to manage. I understand that, and I think largely he and his team do a good job.

What I find concerning is that there is an indication on the statutory independent reporting to this parliament from the Ombudsman this year—and I am sure the minister has read the Ombudsman's report; it is almost sickening to read—of areas bordering on misconduct in relation to the management of prisons. Rules that talk about solitary confinement, isolation and tethering of prisoners are there for good reason; we sign up to the United Nations treaties in relation to these for good reason.

When I read reports of case studies in the Ombudsman's report I am sickened by them, and I think the minister should be concerned about them. When it happens, I think it is incumbent on the minister to come to the parliament, indicate that he has made an inquiry, satisfy the parliament (which is really just a forum for public disclosure) and reassure the people of South Australia that these issues have been identified and remedied, or indicate what process is underway to ensure that it does not happen again or, if there is some explanation contrary to what has been reported through a statutory officer, such as the Ombudsman, some explanation is given as to what has happened—and I am deeply disappointed that the minister has not done that. The other matter I want to raise is that we still have unresolved in this bill the issue of people who are incarcerated in prisons who have a mental health problem. The Minister for Mental Health, then Ms Leesa Vlahos—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: The member for Taylor.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Taylor, yes. I have used her Christian name in her role as a minister. When she was the minister, she answered questions to the parliament about some of the difficulties she faced in the placement of people with mental health problems. We find that at any one time there could be tens of people, and it fluctuates on a daily basis, who are in the adult prisons under Correctional Services supervision because there is nowhere else in the mental health facility for them.

That is, for whatever reason, there is no room at James Nash House for the detention of forensic patients, or there is no adequate facility in the mental health structure which can allow the safe accommodation, and I talk about safety of both the person who is the patient/party to be incarcerated or the other residents or those who work in the mental health area. The safety of those generally requires that they do not have sufficient security and therefore there is a decision by the Minister for Mental Health to place them in a correctional facility.

Just recently, and the minister I am sure would have been alerted to this, we have a situation interstate and possibly here (again no reassurance given by this government) where we have young people who are under 18 who are placed in secure correctional facilities when there is no adequate area for them to be incorporated into either mental health facilities or disability services. It is true, obviously, that at times someone with a mental health condition or a disability exhibits, for example, aggressive and violent behaviour that needs to be managed.

Again, other residents and staff need to be protected, and we all understand that, but this bill does nothing to address the fact that these people are still in the Correctional Services facility and that they should not be there. As a member of the government, the minister must address this. Thirdly, again I see no relief whatsoever in this bill to make statutory provisions for women in the Women's Prison to be able to resume care of their newborn infants in custody. We are still the only state left in Australia that does not provide this.

Something like 10 years ago, the government decided that they would close down or close off the accessibility for pregnant mothers who are being ordered to be imprisoned to be able to have the experience of motherhood while in prison for up to two years. It is something that for decades has been available to women in South Australia in this situation. They cut it off, claiming that they needed those two units, which are down at the Women's Prison and used to accommodate residents in prison with babies, for other purposes.

I do not take issue with the fact that those other purposes are meritorious, but I continue to be appalled that this not been addressed by the government when it has been raised many times. I remember recently, Madam Chair, you asked a question in the parliament about when this was going to be advanced. You got some waffly answer from the minister about what they are trying to do in other areas, but nobody is addressing this. I do not know how many reports the minister has to read, and I accept that he is fairly new in the job, but we get to read a lot of them.

Just this morning, I had members from the stakeholders of Indigenous communities and legal services and family violence again pleading to have some relief and some service not only to ensure that those who are incarcerated—highly represented by Indigenous people in our prisons—have decent programs in prison but also that they have an orderly recognition of their opportunity to work and be educated and upskilled while they are in areas of rehabilitation, hopefully while they are in the prison system. This includes the upskilling of their educational services.

Of course all those things are important, but yet again they plead with us and say that Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander women—although there are not many Torres Strait Islanders in South Australia; nevertheless, they reside here from time to time, sometimes temporarily, and are under our system—are over-represented in the women's sector. I do not know how many reports I have to read, other members of this parliament have to read and the minister has read that say that if children are raised in circumstances with continued family violence and a parent, sibling, aunt or uncle is taken to prison, they are at a high risk of future criminal behaviour, violence towards others and on a collision course with social dysfunction which undermines their capacity to be good citizens. And I make the point—

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, before you go on, did you have an opportunity to make a second reading contribution on this bill?

Ms CHAPMAN: No.

The CHAIR: At the moment this sounds a bit like a second reading contribution.

Ms CHAPMAN: All I am highlighting is what is not in this bill, on clause 1.

The CHAIR: We do need to try to address the clauses that we are dealing with.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 1, which is to introduce the bill.

The CHAIR: Sorry, clause 1 is the short title.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct.

The CHAIR: We need to try and—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am identifying what is not in it.

The CHAIR: I am not trying to give you a difficult morning, but you have already been on your feet for over 10 minutes, and the Chair needs to try to address the clauses.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the last topic.

The CHAIR: Last topic?

Ms CHAPMAN: Indigenous women, especially those who are about to be mothers.

The CHAIR: We can be lenient because it is an important topic, but this is really a second reading contribution.

Ms CHAPMAN: Others have raised this. I have never been given any explanation, other than that the government have decided that there was a higher priority for those two residences at the Women's Prison. We need those services for the women who are entering the system while pregnant and will have children. We need services in the prison to assist Indigenous women to be able to ensure that if they have been imprisoned for drug addiction, alcohol abuse, murdering their partner—when we look at the backgrounds of these cases, we see they have lived in shocking circumstances.

Whilst we understand that the criminal justice system has required that these women serve a term in prison, this has utterly failed them in ensuring that we have the opportunity to break the cycle, not just for those women, young as they often are. They need to be able to bond and develop a relationship with their newborn child. Secondly, they need to be able to have decent rehabilitation, upskilling and training while they are in prison so that when they return to the community (often still at quite a young age) they are able to become productive citizens.

At the moment, they are being denied, and it is very concerning to me and others. This has been a continued area of abandonment. The next time this minister brings a Correctional Services bill into this parliament in the lifetime of this government—he only has four days to do it—it ought to cover those issues. It is shameful that in 16 years they have not only closed down some of those services but failed to deliver others.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr KNOLL: I have a question in relation to the objects around community safety. I will note that there has been some divergent opinion: Frances Nelson is quite comfortable with it; however, the Law Society is not. Essentially, what sort of practical implication does the minister see in the object? What does the minister believe 'community safety' means?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This was one of the things that the member for Schubert discussed in his second reading contribution, questioning why we would have community safety as the primary object of the legislation. From my perspective, I think it makes a lot of sense to do that, particularly when you look at consistency across a number of different acts where community safety exists as a notion in those acts, such as the Youth Justice Administration Act, the Sentencing Act, the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, in determining whether to release a defendant to supervision in accordance with mental impairment provisions.

It has recently been debated in a number of other acts as well. As the member noted, it is also something that has been supported by Frances Nelson QC in her submission on the bill where she said:

I do not consider that the term 'community safety' is used in a vague or meaningless way in the Bill. The Bill refers to community safety as being paramount, and that language is consistent with other Legislation, including the criteria binding the Parole Board, and matters arising in the release on licence of prisoners by the Supreme Court.

Far be it from me to provide a dictionary definition of what community safety means. I think it is a term that would be widely understood by the community. I think the community would expect that the corrections system has as a primary goal to provide safety for the community, which is what a primary objective of our justice system is all about.

Mr KNOLL: So this is the primary object of the bill, but the minister is choosing not to define it in any way to actually give clarity or to address any of the concerns that people have put about this clause. I put this quite clearly in my second reading contribution: community safety can mean a whole series of different things. If the minister, through this amendment bill and these object and guiding principles, seeks to actually help guide the department and the broader correctional services and criminal justice system in how it operates, surely giving some sort of indication about what the minister believes community safety means would be appropriate.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: All I can say is that we have not provided a lengthy description of what community safety means. I am advised that that is consistent with other acts of parliament that have community safety as the objects of those bills as well. We understand that it is a widely recognised term in the community. People, the department and the justice system will understand what is meant by community safety.

I am advised that there have been over 300 references to community safety in this parliament in various debates on legislation and other matters. In fact, my attention has been drawn to Mr McLachlan in the other house talking on a different piece of legislation where he was concerned that that piece of legislation might undermine aspects of the bill that provide for community safety. It is a term that is widely used in this parliament and widely used in our legislation, and we think that it is important to have in the corrections legislation as well.

Mr KNOLL: Will the minister or the department be providing some sort of interpretation to Correctional Services staff and the broader system about how they believe that these objects and guiding principles are to be interpreted?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Already and in the future the department would make sure that its legislation is communicated appropriately to its staff across the department and people who work within the corrections systems to ensure that people understand the legislative provisions that they work under. That obviously includes not only the objects but also the whole detail that people will need to know within the corrections system. That would be something that we would communicate to people across the department. Despite the fact that it is not currently in the legislation, I am sure that the vast majority of our staff, if not all our staff, understand that community safety is a very important part of their role and their employment within the corrections system for the people of South Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the community safety objective, is that to be the primary objective or is it just to be one of the rest?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This is the primary objective that is set under the proposed bill that we have put before the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: I heard what you said in relation to making sure that the staff are informed about what the objects of the act are. That is pretty simple; you can give them a copy of the list. However, as the minister knows, the chief executive at times, or others who are vested with this responsibility, set out guidelines or some instruction and sometimes a direction as to how that is to be implemented and what they should do to ensure that. For example, there is a necessity to report if there has been any threat of violence to someone, and if a prisoner leaves the confines of the facility, that needs to be reported. Again, that to me would be absolutely consistent with ensuring that community safety is recognised as a primary objective. I suppose it is a further question to the member for Schubert as to whether any instruction, guidelines or directions are to be issued.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Absolutely the department, as it does at the moment and will do in the future, has a number of policies and procedures that would guide its work across the corrections system. They all, of course, have to be consistent with the legislation. If the legislation changes, as we are proposing to do, it would be incumbent upon the department to make sure that their policies and procedures are consistent with that legislation, not just in terms of the objects of the act.

Going to the point that both members are essentially raising, you can interpret these things in a number of different ways. That is why we have a lot of detail in the legislation, covering off a whole lot of detailed situations that might arise, to be very clear as to what the parliament expects and to be very clear about what the role and powers and responsibilities of the department for corrections should be in different circumstances. Obviously, the objects need to be read together with the detail of the bill, and both of those elements flow through to policies and procedures that the department would set.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr KNOLL: Minister, this clause is obviously in relation to removing 'with the approval of the minister' wherever it occurs. Practically, what change will that have? Is there less paperwork? What decisions does that mean the CE will undertake on his own, without your input?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Essentially, if you look at legislation at the moment or as we are proposing, this is a department where the chief executive has a significant number of powers and responsibilities, as you would expect in a very operational environment like this. It would not be appropriate for the minister to be making a lot of these decisions, and that is why parliament has in the past decided that the chief executive will make a number of decisions under the legislation.

This is about the delegation of those decisions to other people within the department. Currently, the legislation says that the minister would need to sign off on those delegations. I daresay that they probably are almost always, if not all the time, approved by different ministers, for the chief executive to delegate. This is essentially saying that the chief executive would be able to delegate as he or she sees the need to do so in the future.

It is not a dramatic change. It certainly would address some of the paperwork requirements that might be needed in terms of getting ministerial approval for things. I am happy to follow up further details for the member in terms of the number of times this sort of thing happens.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer the minister to section 7 of the Correctional Services Act because this was an area that was significantly reformed under the last tranche of the Correctional Services bill. That was very substantially modified to allow the chief executive, as the minister said, to exercise far more decision-making than he or she had in the past and there was a significant transfer of decisions, previously made by ministers, across to the chief executive to facilitate that. Largely, that was supported in this parliament on the basis that in some areas it was important that there still be approval by the minister.

The reason for that is a very good one. I am not talking about whether the chief executive can allocate an extra $2 pocket money or allowance—it is not cigarette money anymore, as we have been debating in past years—but it is about making decisions in relation to the deprivation of usually a liberty, an entitlement or a privilege in a prison situation, where there is the need for some supervision. If the chief executive is going to delegate those roles to some other level of employee in correctional services, it is very important to ensure that you, as minister, have to approve it.

It is very important that we do not water down the significance of decisions, which were made by a minister, being transferred to chief executives. Some of these decisions were just to deal with the orderly management of the prisons, and that, as I say, was accepted. It is important that it does not go down the line because it is not acceptable, when there is a disturbance or an event in prisons, for ministers to say, 'Well, look, this was apparently a decision made by somebody at a lower level in Corrections. We are going to investigate it. The chief executive tells me that he is going to look into what was the precipitating factor for this disturbance or riot or assault or whatever in the prison, or how drugs got into the cell of one of the prisoners, and we will come back to you.' Of course, we never hear from him again. That is what actually happens.

It is very important that if there is an incident or alternatively, as is sadly the case in the Ombudsman's report, conduct in relation to the restraint or isolation of prisoners, that the delegation of that goes to the chief executive and that he or she takes responsibility for it and that it does not go down the line. It is not acceptable on the very strict rules, for example, of prisoners being in isolation, which is prohibited under international law and treaties from being used as a punishment tool, for that to be delegated down the line to somebody else.

We in this parliament have been quite supportive of the government balancing the necessity of the mechanical management of a prison, but we do not want this to go down to a level other than the chief executive. If it does, then you, as minister, have to approve it and if you approve it and something goes wrong, then you have to explain to the parliament and to the people of South Australia, why you approved it. That is why it is there and that is why it is a concerning matter that you treat this as something that is not real life and that we have to have a practical application of this. No, we do not. That is why we have a law.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr KNOLL: I appreciate this is a step up. I met Mr James Hugo on Monday, which was the first time I have met him, a man who has been in that role, I understand, for about 50 years. There are a series of questions on this. The first question is in relation to section 20(2)(c). It says that we want at least one official inspector to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. That makes sense given that 22 per cent of the prison population is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

At least one official inspector for each correctional institution is to be a legal practitioner. Again, that makes sense, especially in helping prisoners to understand their rights and obligations whilst in prison. Then it says that at least one official inspector for each correctional institution is to be a woman. Is that the case for male-only prisons and why does the minister think that that specific skill set needs to be included?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the shadow minister for the question. As the member has outlined, it is the intention of the government to quite significantly change the processes underway in terms of official inspectors and to quite significantly improve that system, with all credit to Mr Hugo. I was happy to host him for lunch the other day to celebrate his 50 years in the department since he started working at the old Adelaide Gaol in 1967. I think that he and others in the system understand that there are significant improvements that we need to make to this system. It is a very good measure from an accountability perspective.

In regard to the specifics about having at least one female as part of the panel of people who would inspect every prison, yes, it is the intention that that would cover all prisons within the state, including male-only prisons. It is an acknowledgement that we, in the South Australian public sector if not the state as a whole, would like to see gender diversity in the appointments we make. We think that having women as part of those inspections provides an improved balance and different perspectives to the analysis and work of those official inspectors.

It may well be the case that a number of women are appointed even if we did not have this provision, but we think that it is prudent to say that there should be at least one female appointed as an official inspector. It could be the case that official inspectors are appointed for multiple prisons, in which case there might be people doing the Women's Prison and Yatala as nearby facilities, so it would make sense to have females involved in that process. The government supports having this in place. We think that it provides balance, as we have also said, in terms of people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background as well. We think that it will provide a balanced improvement for the system.

Mr KNOLL: If I can go to section 20D(1), the Law Society has said that an official inspector must consult with and have regard to any submissions made by a prisoner's legal representative on behalf of the prisoner. Has the minister had any discussion about whether or not he believes that that should be included as part of these changes?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is not the government's intention to make that a requirement under the act as per what the Law Society has said. However, we certainly think that it would be part of the inspectors' roles to receive that sort of information. The proposed bill says that an official inspector:

may receive and consider information, reports and materials relevant to exercising the official inspector's statutory functions.

I would think that that would include legal information as well as any other representations that might be made to those official inspectors. We have deliberately kept it broad in terms of what information the official inspectors might be able to receive.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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