HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-12-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendment.

(Continued from 27 November 2018.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment be disagreed to.

May I indicate that the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill 2018 as amended by the Legislative Council and the amendment thereon are wholly rejected by the government and being returned. This is a bill which now shifts the parameters of the policy a great deal. This is a policy which we took to the last state election and which we say the people of South Australia were utterly committed to.

The bill we see before us has an amendment which diminishes that policy and does not align with the commonwealth position, which is to essentially make provision that you will forfeit the right to have a vote if you are in prison on a term of imprisonment of more than three years, which includes life prisoners. We consider, and the public of South Australia consider, you should forfeit the right to vote while you are in prison, and prison for us includes while you are in home detention.

The opposition has proposed that only the people who are serving a life sentence will be unable to vote in the state election. All other prisoners will be allowed to vote. In terms of numbers, this means only 6 per cent of the prison population would be unable to vote, a significant change from the proposal this government brought to the parliament. Currently, there are 196 people serving a life sentence in South Australia's prisons, as I am advised. While there is a range of offences on the statute book that have a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, murder carries a mandatory life sentence. The government agrees that people serving a life sentence should not be able to vote. That is part of what we proposed. However, the government believes that the voting restriction should go further.

The government bill, as introduced, would capture prisoners who have committed offences where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment but who have received a lesser sentence, a sentence greater than three years but less than life. Offences that carry a life sentence, depending on the circumstances of the offending but where a lesser sentence might be imposed, include manslaughter, death by dangerous driving, criminal neglect, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14, persistent sexual abuse of a child, sexual servitude and related offences if the victim is a child under the age of 14 years, arson, aggravated robbery, aggravated serious criminal trespass, serious drug offences under the Controlled Substances Act. So we are talking about offending of a very serious nature, offending where, if a person has received a sentence of three years or more, under the government bill they would be prevented from voting—but not under the opposition's proposal, unless they happened to get a life sentence.

In addition, the government bill would apply to prisoners who have committed offences that do not carry a life sentence but that carry a high maximum sentence, and where a court considers they should be sentenced for three years or more. This would include offences such as robbery, but not aggravated (that is, with a weapon, etc.); causing serious harm to another; endangering life; possessing child pornography; procure a child to commit an indecent act; participate in a criminal organisation; drug offences under the Controlled Substances Act; and offences under the Firearms Act.

These are not small misdemeanours, these are not some summary level of criminal activity, these are not just misconduct, not just unbecoming conduct. These are at the serious end, the pointy end of the pencil. On this side of the house, we say it is important that we send a message that people serving sentences in these categories should also lose the right to vote. The opposition has obviously forgotten that whilst many people commit offences for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment they may not be sentenced to life imprisonment; it is only the maximum.

Finally, the government bill also prevents the following categories of people from voting: persons detained on the basis that they are unwilling or unable to control their sexual instincts and persons detained under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015. These two groups are particularly interesting, and I hope that other members in the chamber are listening carefully to this matter, particularly those who sit on the opposition benches.

They were in government once—and I hope we will not see that time again in a hurry—and I will say that, when in government, they were very strong regarding protection of the people of South Australia from people in these categories. They went to considerable lengths, which has been dealt with in some other jurisdictions around the commonwealth and which the commonwealth, as we speak, is looking at in terms of how to better deal with persons in this category.

However, regarding people who are unwilling or unable to control their sexual instincts, I have heard members of the house make public statements about the importance of us having protection in this area. I am utterly astounded that when people in this category are denied the option to vote the opposition say, 'No, that's okay. Let these people have their democratic right to vote.' This is a category of people the opposition has been so fervent about in terms of sponsoring law reforms to keep them in custody or under extended supervision orders—that is, they would be released but continue to be under surveillance or restriction post the head sentence concluding—a group that when it is politically opportune the opposition claim should have absolutely no rights and then they attempt to rush legislation.

That is pathetic, absolutely pathetic. It is hypocritical, absolute hypocrisy. I do not know how the opposition can justify distinguishing their rampant demand to lock them up and protect the public of South Australia and then, in all conscience, come into this parliament—or at least the Legislative Council, dominant in the sponsoring of these amendments—and demand they have a right to vote. It is just laughable.

It is a clear reminder that the Leader of the Opposition and his team only care about the high-risk offenders and the sexual offenders when there is good media—good media for what they can get out of it, or, in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, when one of them has proposed to live in his electorate. That is how narrow-minded the opposition has been and how easily exposed they are to the assertion that they are totally opportunistic on this and do not really consider the significance of what the public wants.

Sure, the public wants protection. They want to make sure that there are not people living in their streets or loitering around their schools, but they also want to know that, when these people have been convicted of these offences, they have been denied the privileges that all the rest of us have. One of those privileges is to contribute in elections by voting for people who are going to represent us in the state parliament or in the federal parliament. I find it incredible that we are in a situation where there has been this blatant hypocrisy displayed by the opposition. Beyond high-risk offenders, serial sexual deviants like Shannon McCoole would be eligible to vote under the Labor proposition.

I can remember, and I know the member for Enfield can remember, the then premier (now the member for Cheltenham) standing shoulder to shoulder with the police commissioner. The member for Enfield might have even been there as the attorney-general, but perhaps he was not quite so silly as to be exposed to that. There was a big press conference and every man and his dog were there. This was in circa May 2014, when the premier came out and said that Mr McCoole had been arrested and charged and that he had committed acts of evil.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I was not there.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, that was smart enough. That SC is worth something, I suppose. You would not be so silly, member for Enfield, as to stand up there in a circumstance that I have never seen in all the time I have been in here: an act that could be so prejudicial to a fair trial, if it were needed in that case, resulting from the conduct of the now member for Cheltenham, then premier, standing up and making those statements when a man had been charged. He had not at that stage been tried, but where the member for Enfield was slightly missing in action—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Chair, point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order from the member for Enfield.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am thoroughly enjoying this trip down memory lane with the Deputy Premier, but it is not actually pertinent to the matter before parliament. Whilst it is very good—I am loving it, and I hope you can think of some more things I have done that are terrific—in the meantime, why don't we get back to prisoners having a vote?

The CHAIR: Attorney, I think we have probably spent enough time on the member for Enfield's previous time, so we will come back to the amendment at hand.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Alright. I do not think there is anyone in South Australia who would forget Shannon McCoole. Under the opposition's proposition, voted for in the other place, he still gets a vote. I do not even understand—

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order, Mr Chair.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: There is a point of order from the member for Hammond. Member for West Torrens, you are interjecting and you are not even in your place.

Mr PEDERICK: You have the point of order, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Thank you, I pre-empted that. Attorney, let's not coax too much from the opposition.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Alright. As I said, the Legislative Council, with the support of the members of the Australian Labor Party, have presented to us an abridged version of those who can continue to vote whilst in prison. I make the point that people such as Shannon McCoole will continue in that category. I find it astounding and incomprehensible that, with all the carry-on from the opposition, they would even allow this to happen. It is simply not acceptable; it certainly would not pass the pub test, not in my electorate.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for West Torrens—

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order: the member for West Torrens keeps interjecting out of his place. He has been here 21 years and I know he should know better, but he does not.

The CHAIR: He does indeed know better. I remind the member for West Torrens that interjections are out of order, let alone if they are not from your place. Attorney, let us return to the amendment at hand.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The amendment at hand would have a very serious and extensive consequence if we were to accept it, which is why I am explaining why the government would reject it. Let us go back to what the public want. The public voted us into government with a commitment, as one of our policies, that we would ensure that prisoners would not have a vote. We made it very clear that it would be the same as the commonwealth threshold and that it would be for those imprisoned for three years or more, whether they were in prison or in home detention. We made that very clear.

I do not know how often the member for West Torrens, the member for Enfield or even the member for Kaurna go into their local pub. I have been into the one on Henley Beach Road before. I do not think I let the member for West Torrens know that I was there. He might like to know that the announcement of where the new Festival Centre would be built was first made in 1969 in one of his hotels at a Liberal Party function by then premier Hall.

Mr PICTON: Point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am getting a bit off track, I agree.

Mr PICTON: Amazingly, even the Deputy Premier has acknowledged that she is getting a bit off track.

The CHAIR: I accept your point of order. I redirect the Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was just so enthused with the blush of history—

The CHAIR: I can see that. We have had a history lesson here today.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that I thought he might like to know that. He could have a little plaque put outside in recognition of that important event. I am told that the question was—if I could just complete the sentence—shall we have it on the river or shall we have it back on the road? That was the—

Mr PICTON: Point of order: the Attorney is defying your ruling.

The CHAIR: I did not actually make a ruling, but I suggested earlier to the Attorney that she address the amendment at hand.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In the other place, the opposition carried on about the legislative synchronicity across the states with these laws and, despite this, the opposition's proposal would take us down a path that other jurisdictions have not taken. In most other jurisdictions, a prisoner is unable to vote if they are serving a sentence of one year, three years or five years. The threshold varies. In no other jurisdiction is the threshold a life sentence.

We must remember that all other states have already passed laws restricting prisoner voting. South Australia again lags behind and, as I said, it was the commitment of the government prior to the election that we would remedy this. I commend the Minister for Energy because he was one of the first people in the then opposition to recognise the significance of this and ensure that we address it, we consider it and, of course, it was embodied in the commitments we made prior to the election.

The government introduced a bill into the house that had clear parameters and policies around it. It was well thought out and covered varying groups of offenders, even those on extended supervision. The opposition want you to believe that they are tough on crime and hard on criminals in our prisons, but clearly this is not the case. They have absolutely watered down a sound legislative change to restrict prisoner voting in line with the commonwealth standard. This policy is based on federal standards. This government firmly believes that people who commit serious offences should not be afforded the privilege to vote. By moving these amendments, allowing high-risk offenders such as those who commit rape and domestic violence to continue to vote, Labor has again shown that they misunderstand community expectations.

I also point out the absolute absurdity if we were to accept this legislation: all those people sitting in custody would be restricted from voting at the next federal election but could go and vote for any of us at the next state election. How utterly absurd to have a situation where they can be told, 'Sorry, none of you can come into the voting booths at Yatala unless you are in the under three-year category. All the rest of you have to go back to your cells; you're not getting a vote,' but, come the state election, it is everyone in except those with a life sentence. It is just so absurd. Imagine the bureaucratic process of redoing the new set of rules and not keeping it consistent when there is an opportunity under the original government bill to do just that.

Clearly, somehow or other the ALP have decided that they are in the business of trying to frustrate good and sensible law and not seriously consider operational capacity and consistency, where it can be done. They have not considered the public expectation that we not only deal with people, in the sense of depriving them of their liberty when they commit serious offences, but certainly not allow them to vote. Therefore, for all those circumstances, the opposition utterly rejects this amendment.

Mr PICTON: What a load of hogwash we have just heard from the Deputy Premier. Sadly, it is not the first time, probably even this week, that we have heard such a diatribe from the Deputy Premier—

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna will speak to the amendment, as I encouraged the Attorney to do.

Mr PICTON: That is what we have come to expect, sadly, but it is interesting that we are debating it this week and not last week because it was here ready to debate last week. We could have debated this in the house last week, if it was such an important thing to do.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Too busy doing other things.

Mr PICTON: I do not think we were because we went home early a couple of times. I do not think we were very busy at all because this is a government that has no agenda, so we were not very busy. It was interesting that there was a report published about the bill on Thursday 29 November, which stated:

She—

being the Deputy Premier—

is expected to accept the amendments this morning meaning only those serving life sentences will be banned from voting.

The Advertiser reported last week that the Deputy Premier was expected to come into this house and pass these amendments, but something happened between now and then that we get this thunderous opposition from her. Let's recollect for a second that these amendments were not just Labor Party amendments. They were supported by SA-Best and the Greens as well in the other place, although the Deputy Premier fails to acknowledge that.

We even had the spectacle of accusations flying at the Hon. Frank Pangallo MLC that he was somehow in favour of paedophiles, which was remarkable and absolutely disgusting, in my view. Clearly, this could have been done and dusted last week. We could have debated this. We could have had the Attorney's references to the development of the Festival Plaza and Liberal Party fundraisers in her filibustering speech last week, but clearly something has happened. Of course, last week, we had all sorts of division happening in the Liberal Party, so who knows what has happened here.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, could you take a seat, please. I did direct the Attorney on a number of occasions back to the amendment.

Mr PICTON: Really?

The CHAIR: Yes, I did. You were sitting here. I am going to ask you to do the same thing.

Mr PICTON: We know that there was an article in the paper saying that the Deputy Premier would be supporting this, but now those amendments proposed by the Legislative Council are being opposed by the government here, and that change is interesting.

It is also interesting that we are seeing complete filibustering in the parliament today. Essentially, the Deputy Premier has made some allegations as to whether or not the Labor Party is tough on law and order. I think one thing is pretty clear from the past 16 years. You can make all sorts of assertions, as she does, about the past 16 years, but clearly the Labor Party was tough on law and order. We consistently changed the laws. We consistently increased the resources available to our police. We increased penalties for violent and other horrible crimes in our community and continued to strive towards a safer community, which we did in the reduction of crime in South Australia over that period of time.

When you judge a piece of legislation in terms of the impact it will have on a safer community, you can look at a few tests. One is: is this going to stop anybody from offending? Is this going to stop any offences from occurring in our community? In this case, the answer is no. There will not be an offender in the community who is going to say, 'I'm not going to punch this person because I might be sentenced to imprisonment, which might result in the lack of voting.' That is not going to happen. That is not going deter anybody from committing a crime.

The second test is: is this going to help catch any offenders? Is this going to lead to a prosecution or arrest that we would not otherwise have in South Australia? Of course not. The police are not going to have any extra ability to arrest, nor the DPP to prosecute, nor our courts to convict people, on the basis that this is in place. There will not be any greater enforcement of the law because of this.

The third test is: is this going reduce the likelihood of prisoners to reoffend once they have been released from prison? Not only is there no evidence of that but in fact it is potentially the reverse. According to our own experts from the South Australian Law Society and elsewhere, and international experts I have referred to previously in this house, this might have a detrimental effect in terms of our ability to rehabilitate prisoners and stop them from reoffending in the future.

One of the central aims of our corrections system should be to stop people from reoffending. When the Leader of the Opposition (member for Croydon) was minister for correctional services, he led a transformation in terms of South Australia's corrections policy, supported by the then shadow minister (member for Stuart), to refocus our energies on trying to prevent reoffending. There is evidence that the Attorney-General's proposal to oppose the Legislative Council's amendment could have a detrimental effect, leading to worse rehabilitation outcomes.

On those factors—nobody else is going to be caught, there will not be any further deterrence, there will not be any people arrested, there will not be any extra people prosecuted or convicted and there is not going to be any benefit to rehabilitation—there seems little reason for this. In addition, when we went through the statistics the last time this was debated in the house, it was very clear that hardly anybody will be affected.

Not many prisoners vote, and particularly not many of the prisoners we are talking about in relation to this bill. As such, the impact is going to be very small in terms of the number of voters. The impact on community safety is absolutely non-existent, although it could potentially harm rehabilitation, which is what our corrections system should be focusing on.

We look forward to the government developing an agenda. They have talked about an 'agenda of real change', which we have yet to see. If they continue not to have an agenda, we have some other bills we could debate. With those few words, we support the Legislative Council's amendment and will be opposing the government's motion to oppose it.

Ms LUETHEN: I rise to support everything the Attorney-General has said today in not supporting the amendment that has come from the other place. This bill fulfils the Marshall government's election commitment to bring South Australia in line with every other jurisdiction in Australia, with the exception of the ACT, with regard to prisoner voting in elections. I really do thank the Attorney-General and her department for the important work they have done on this bill—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There's a point of order, member for King; could you take your seat, please. Member for Enfield.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member's contribution is self-confessed repetition and therefore contrary to standing orders.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It does not matter in a debate. Haven't you been listening to the member for West Torrens for the last 21 years?

The CHAIR: Attorney! The member for King has only just begun her contribution; she is making the case, as I understand it—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: She started off by saying, 'I agree with everything—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, give me a moment here, please. The member for King is looking to build a case in opposition to the amendment, as I understand it. We will give her the opportunity to do that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was just making the point, Mr Chair, that she said that she agreed with everything the Attorney-General had said. Having listened to the eloquence of the Attorney-General, I—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Yes, but she has more to add as well.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is more? Okay, fair enough.

The CHAIR: Member for Enfield, I am sorry; I am going to have to ask you to repeat that because I could not hear what you were saying due to the interjections.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Interjections, disorderly they are. I was just going to say that the member for King started her contribution with an explanation that she agreed with everything the Attorney-General said. In those circumstances, seeing that the standing orders discourage repetition, it would be orderly for that to be noted—it informs us of her opinion—then we can move on.

The CHAIR: That is extraordinarily pedantic, member for Enfield. I do not uphold the point of order, but thank you for repeating it anyway. The member for King has the call and she will be heard in silence.

Ms LUETHEN: I have talked to my electorate of King, in the campaign leading up to the election and subsequently, about their views on this bill today and generally in terms of taking a tougher stance on people who break the law in South Australia. I will be getting to my electors' feedback. The change we propose is to amend the legislation so that our South Australian law reflects that committing an offence that attracts a prison term of three years or longer is so serious that the consequences ought to go beyond imprisonment to forfeiting voting rights for the duration of the prison sentence.

This change brings South Australia in line with every other jurisdiction in Australia with the exception of the ACT. The bill provides that any prisoner, including a person on home detention, who is serving a sentence for three years or longer is ineligible to vote at state elections. The bill does not change the enrolment status of prisoners. After release, prisoners will be able to vote again. This is consistent with the principle that punishment should not extend beyond the original sentence. This bill reflects what the public have been telling me they want to see.

If not for the changes we are proposing, people like Shannon McCoole will continue to have the right to vote and be able to influence who gets elected to make the laws that would or would not stand in the way of their reoffending. A further reason I oppose the amendments from the other house is that the Marshall government took this promise to the 2018 election after listening to South Australian views that people who commit a serious criminal offence should forfeit their democratic right to participate in state elections. The Marshall Liberal government does not back away from the promise it made prior to the election.

Simply put, our view, which is shared by most South Australians, is that it is an affront that people who commit serious criminal offences are entitled to elect the parliament that makes the laws they have broken. Passing this bill will mean that a person who is in custody at the close of rolls and serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more will be ineligible to vote in a South Australian state election. Currently, all prisoners in South Australia can vote in South Australian elections; however, the position is not the same in other jurisdictions. This will bring us in line. The changes we propose will mean that prisoners who are ineligible to vote in a commonwealth election will also be ineligible to vote in a South Australian election.

A difference between this bill and the commonwealth laws is in relation to prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more on home detention, who will also be ineligible to vote at a state election. People sentenced to home detention must realise that this is a serious sentence from the court and will impact on their right to vote just as any other type of custodial sentence would. The rationale for this is that, for the purposes of the Sentencing Act, home detention is treated as a form of custody. Importantly, the bill will not apply to people who are detained under the mental impairment provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

This is a really important point that I share in terms of what has been voiced to me as important to King electors. This bill does not affect a person's enrolment status or their ability to enrol. That is unaffected by the amendments, which relate specifically to the entitlement to vote provided in part 9, division 1 of the Electoral Act. A prisoner who is enrolled but ineligible to vote will remain on the roll and be able to vote again once they are released; I want to make that absolutely clear. Upon release, they will resume the freedoms and entitlements of other citizens. In other words, once a person has finished their sentence, their rights are restored, including their right to vote, and that is how it should be.

The bill makes a number of technical amendments to the Electoral Act to support the new position on prisoner voting. It makes amendments to section 68 of the Electoral Act, which provides for the preparation of a certified list of electors for an election. Finally, the Marshall government approach to this and all justice issues is a principled one. It is the right thing to do and should have been done years ago. South Australia is currently the only state that has not imposed these restrictions upon prisoners voting and it is appropriate that we fall into line with the other jurisdictions. Indeed, it is our time to catch up.

My electorate of King have told me very strongly that their wish is to see stronger penalties and sentences for people who break the law, especially expressing a desire for tougher consequences for those people who commit the most serious offences. In the past couple of days, I have asked for feedback on this issue from groups of young people and the broader community. The responses were mixed, but it was clear that the majority of people who shared their view told me that they do support the change that we initially proposed and that they do not support the amendment that has been put forward.

I will quote some of these responses, which reflect the majority view. Quote 1 says, 'I believe that if you are in jail, then you are a danger to society and should not vote, because voting is a social privilege and crime is a social problem.' Quote 2 says, 'In prison, you lose freedoms…and this should extend to the right to vote.' Quote 3 says, 'I'm shocked. I assumed they could not vote whilst in prison.' This was echoed by a number of people today when I did a tour through Parliament House with the Tea Tree Gully RSL. They were shocked and just assumed that people could not vote while in prison. Another quote says, 'No vote for criminals of course!!!' The next quote says:

If you have committed a crime severe enough to put you in jail for a sentence longer than 3 years then loss of privilege is a given. The privilege of food, shelter, a day in court, Drs, dentists, exercise, tv, books, telephones, visitors and legal representation are not denied. Freedom is denied. Voting is freedom!

Another quote:

Do the crime, go to gaol. This means your liberty is curtailed. Such as the right to vote. Your crimes are a demonstration that you have rejected the implicit assumption of democracy that you respect others rights and they respect yours. Ok once you're out of gaol you've done your time so it's ok to give you another chance to live in civil society and this includes voting.

Yet another quote:

Criminals should not be entitled to keep their vote. Its time to stop giving paedophiles, rapists, drug traffickers, arsonists and a whole variety of other very serious offenders more rights than their victims. Its time for justice to prevail in our courts, and in government. Victims of horrendous crimes receive a life sentence, while offenders of inhumane crimes in this country are given more right than their victim, are even given the right to vote. While victim and their family's receive a lifetime sentence.

To summarise, the Marshall government has committed to introducing legislation to disqualify people who have committed serious offences from voting at South Australian state elections. Passing this bill will mean that a person who is in custody at the close of rolls and serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more will be ineligible to vote at a South Australian state election. This is an overdue change and one that will be broadly welcomed.

Currently, all prisoners in South Australia can vote in South Australian state elections. However, the position is not the same across Australia. The bill will bring South Australia broadly into line with the commonwealth position. It will mean that prisoners who are ineligible to vote in a commonwealth election will also be ineligible to vote in a South Australian election.

In addition, the bill will prevent the following categories of people from voting: a person who is detained on the basis that they are unwilling or unable to control their sexual instincts and a person who is subject to a continuing detention order under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Ac  2015. Importantly, the bill will not apply to people who are detained under the mental impairment provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Importantly, when a person has finished a custodial sentence, their rights are restored, including the right to vote. That is how it should be. This is not a decision we have come to lightly; it is one we have debated within our own party.

In relation to the proposed opposition Labor Party amendments, I do not support these because their party is asking this parliament to accept that paedophiles, rapists, drug traffickers, arsonists and a whole variety of other very serious offenders should not only be entitled to vote but should be entitled to influence who becomes our lawmakers. This is what the Labor Party is asking this parliament to support.

Can I say on behalf of the government that we strongly oppose this amendment from the Labor Party. It is symptomatic of everything that was wrong with the former Labor government and the Labor Party. There is a stark difference between the attitude struck by the former government over 16 years and the new government that was elected on a new platform, and we made it quite clear. This was not a policy that was hidden away: this was a policy that was quite clearly communicated prior to the election. We made it quite clear prior to the election, and the bill seeks to implement that clear election policy. Again, this bill reflects what the public have told me that they want and I commend the bill to members.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this matter. I agree with everything that the member for King just said, but that in no way means that I forgo my right to contribute myself. The member for King has just made an absolutely outstanding contribution on this matter, built on the contribution from the Attorney-General.

It is a terrible thing for the Labor opposition to be trying to water down this proposal from the government. This proposal, which we took to the election, was very clearly an election commitment. I am not aware of the now opposition ever objecting to it when they were in government, when we announced it as a policy. I might have missed that somewhere along the line and perhaps the shadow minister can bring that information forward if it exists. However, I do not believe that the then government ever uttered a word against this policy of ours when we were in opposition before the election.

To try to water down what is such a straightforward, common-sense and clear policy really just adds to the list of examples of the now Labor opposition trying to play politics with just about everything that comes along. I know that if the Labor Party had come up with this suggestion themselves, they would think that it was a terrific idea. They would have thought that it was a terrific idea for the same reasons that we do: it is sensible, it is practical, it brings the state in line with the commonwealth and it makes it very clear that among a list of privileges that a person loses when they go to prison, voting in state elections as well as commonwealth elections is one of them.

For the opposition to say that they should not do this because very few people would be affected, very few prisoners actually vote, so it will have minimal impact so they should not support is silly. For them to say that there are very few people out of the total population who are prisoners who would be captured by this change as we have proposed is silly. For them to say that it will not reduce crime is silly.

The reason it is silly is that it is not a penalty targeted at reducing crime; it is a penalty targeted at the very sensible, logical position that, when people commit crimes so serious that they are sentenced to three or more years in prison, they do not get to contribute to society in the same way they used to when they were out of prison and they do not get to contribute to society, particularly with regard to having the right to place their vote to decide who makes the laws—the laws that those people, clearly by definition of their sentence, have so obviously disregarded.

It is sensible for a whole range of reasons, but it should not be a complete surprise. The Liberal Party brought to this parliament a policy of limiting the number of drug diversions that a person could have, from unlimited diversions down to three. I know that the majority of members of the Labor Party agreed with that. Somebody could be caught with a small quantity of a low-level drug an unlimited number of times and just be sent off to a drug diversion program, and quite often not even attend that program, get caught again and get diverted, get caught again and get diverted.

From memory, when I was a shadow minister, one person had been sent to a drug diversion program 34 times. Clearly, after the first three or four times you would say, 'This is not working for this person.' So we proposed that there would be a limit of three, and after three there would not be an automatic diversion. After three, it would go to court and the court would decide whether or not that person had some extenuating circumstances and had a right to a further diversion, or whether some other penalty should be imposed.

But the government of the day, the now opposition, opposed that purely because they wanted to mess around with politics. It is ridiculous. They just use this house as their plaything. Again, on the issue of home detention, quite a few years ago we made the very sensible suggestion that home detention, as proposed by the previous government, absolutely did have a place as a substitute for sentencing to prison in certain situations, but that it could never be considered for murderers, terrorists or serious sex offenders. You cannot get much more sensible than that.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Or treason.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Or treason—thank you, Attorney. But the then government, purely for political reasons, said, 'Yes, actually we know it's a very sensible proposal, but we will object to it just purely to cause difficulty.'

It is just like the previous government's decision to purchase the diesel generators. As soon as the then opposition and now government said that we would not pursue the purchase—we would fulfil the lease that the former government had locked us into, but we would not pursue the purchase—within milliseconds they said they were going to commit the state to the purchase. Just like the former government agreed with interconnection between South Australia and New South Wales right up to the moment when the current government, then opposition, said that we supported that and thought it would be a good thing, all of a sudden they flipped their position—changed instantly overnight.

So we should not be surprised that when we bring a sensible position forward, saying that we want to bring rights to vote in state elections in line with rights to vote in commonwealth elections and in line with the overwhelming majority of public sentiment, the opposition just want to object to it. If they had thought of it themselves, they would have delivered this into parliament. Because the Liberal Party has come up with this sensible proposal, they want to object to it. The opposition do not use this parliament for what they think is best for South Australians; they use this parliament for what they think is worst for the government. That is their modus operandi and they should be absolutely ashamed of that.

As the shadow minister said, when the former minister for corrections, the current Leader of the Opposition, and myself as the former shadow minister for corrections talked about policy issues from time to time, and when the government of the day came up with a good one, as shadow minister I said, 'Yes, that's a good one. We will support that policy.' When it was not good, I said, 'No, we won't support it.' That is the way an opposition should work.

When the government of the day comes up with something that is sensible and is supported by the public and common sense, the opposition should just get in behind it and say, 'Yep, good on you. We wish we had thought of it ourselves, but you did. It is a good idea we'll support it.' But, no, not these guys. They just want to use the parliament as their personal plaything to make life difficult for the government, with no thought whatsoever for what is best for the people of this state. So shame on them for that.

We are going to stick with what we believe is sensible and respected by the public and what is the right way to treat voting. Whether it is from the perspective of consistency with the commonwealth, from public sentiment or from deprivation of liberties in a responsible way for those who have committed very serious crimes, we are going to stick with our position. Like those from the government who have spoken before me, I do not support the amendment that is coming back from the other place.

Mr TEAGUE: I rise also to oppose the amendment. In an endeavour to give some credence or to attempt to analyse where the opposition might be coming from in supporting the amendment that has come from the upper house, I have endeavoured to look for a rationale that might be behind it, and we can all have an interesting conversation about jurisprudence, law reform measures, theories of justice and all the rest of it. I do not see that ably articulated by those on the other side, so I confess to being persuaded by the remarks of the member for Stuart just now in that regard.

Having made those remarks at the outset, I agree with everything the Attorney-General has said just now; moreover, I agree with everything the member for King has had to say. I was privileged to be present in the chamber for her remarks, and I agree wholeheartedly with everything she said. As I have just adverted to, I also agree with everything the member for Stuart has had to say.

However, I am not the least bit concerned that I might be traversing over ground that might be covered by standing order 128 because I say 'more', and that is important on two fronts. I will not rehearse what I had to say when the bill was first before this house back in June, but I certainly encourage honourable members to reflect on those remarks where I talked about the history of depriving the vote to those who are incarcerated. It goes back to at least 1870. I will not rehearse all that, but in the context of the amendment—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Very interesting, though.

Mr TEAGUE: —indeed, I commend it to all members—I would highlight two points in particular. It has been put, as I understand it, that somehow the deprivation of the franchise runs counter to the prospects for rehabilitation of prisoners, and that is a very interesting conversation that we might all have about the relative effects on the prospects of rehabilitation.

I would suggest that by introducing the regime, removing the right to vote for those serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more—in line, I hasten to add, with section 93(8AA) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act—that is a temporal removal of the right to vote while serving a serious and relatively lengthy period of imprisonment. It might well be said that that measure in itself augurs towards rehabilitation with a view to the right to have that privilege reinstated upon that person completing their sentence. The proposed restriction would bring South Australia, for the first time, directly in line with the provision that applies in relation to commonwealth elections and South Australia into the world of franchise that applies throughout the rest of the country in one form or another. It may have positive effects on the prospects for rehabilitation rather than the contrary.

I make a further important observation in this context, as has been observed by those with whom I heartily agree on this side of the house, that the Marshall Liberal government brings this legislation to the house in accord with the mandate that it obtained in March. It brings this legislation to the house because the people of South Australia voted for it.

The people of South Australia voted for it and we are delivering what we have committed to do. Without even any serious endeavour by those on the other side to deny the passage of legislation in accordance with the mandate, those on the other side are behaving in the most cynical way imaginable. I do not see any recourse to jurisprudence. I see only a cynical endeavour to stand in the way of this government delivering on what it promised it would do.

All of that is unsurprising. It is not as though we are, by the legislation that was debated in this house in June, seeking to bring about some sort of revolutionary change to the franchise situation that applies across the country. On the contrary: we would be bringing South Australia directly in line with the commonwealth and very much more analogous with the circumstances that apply in all the other states to some extent or another, there being a greater level of consistency in relation to the application of the principle.

I am anxious to hear from the opposition about what is said to support the proposed amendment in principle, but I have heard nothing of principle coming back from the other side. If we were to hear some engagement at a level of principle, we might hear from those on the other side about the positive effects of the franchise and perhaps about a rights argument, the inherent rights of every individual to participate in civil society—something along those lines. I would be interested to hear the opposition prosecute those arguments.

It might be interesting to hear the opposition, in fact, prosecute an argument in line with principle in saying, 'If we are going to go beyond three years, why stop at life? Why deny the franchise at all if it is to accord with some argument of principle?' But I hear none of that, just that here we are endeavouring to legislate in line with our electoral mandate. I would argue it is in line with principles that accord with endeavours to assist prisoners to rehabilitate and rejoin society, having served a sentence, yet we are met with this cynical response from those on the other side.

We know on the topic of rehabilitation that prisoner rehabilitation is hugely important and central to much of the corrections environment and ought to be something that we focus on with a view to ensuring that those who have served their sentences are able fully to rejoin civil society, and it is a challenge that is ongoing. There are any number of important measures, programs and so on that are made available to prisoners, and those are to be applauded. They include education and training programs while a prisoner remains incarcerated, and there are many of those providing work opportunities to prisoners while incarcerated, and explicit offender rehabilitation programs in a range of categories for a range of offenders who find themselves serving terms of imprisonment.

Of course we are focused on rehabilitation. Of course we would endeavour to do all that is possible to ensure that those who are coming out on the other side have prospects to rejoin civil society. Every endeavour should be taken to ensure that we continue to do that. But I would argue, as I have from the outset in these brief remarks, that the removal of the franchise in these circumstances, in a temporal way while a prisoner is serving a period of imprisonment for any one of the very serious offences that are caught by the period of imprisonment that is the subject of the bill prior to amendment and set out in clause 6 of the bill by virtue of the new designated purpose definition in subsection (5), is a measure that is in line with approaches to what a person is deprived of when they are serving a sentence of imprisonment.

As we know, primarily they are deprived of their liberty. They are deprived to a significant extent of property and may be explicitly so in circumstances of confiscation. For the purposes of this bill, they are in that temporal sense, while serving those serious periods of imprisonment greater than three years, also deprived of the franchise. The deprivation of the franchise, the subject of the bill as originally presented to the house, accords with principle, and I commend that original unamended bill to the house.

Time expired.

Dr HARVEY: I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment from the other place and I wholeheartedly support the comments of the Attorney-General, the comments of the member for King, the member for Stuart and, of course, the member of Heysen.

On this side, we are seeking to deliver on a commitment we took to the people of South Australia at the last election. We took a number of commitments, and we have taken very seriously the need to do what we said we would do. That is because people from right across the community were sick and tired of previous governments that went to the election saying one thing and then straight afterwards did something very different. We are different from that: we are bringing the change that we promised.

When we went to the people of South Australia, we told them our plan: that prisoners imprisoned for a sentence of greater than three years would be unable to vote for the period of their sentence. That is what we went to the people of South Australia promising and that is what we are seeking to deliver—in the same way that we went to the people of South Australia and committed to put a cap on council rates, in the same way we committed to deregulate shop trading hours to give people better choice and in the same way we committed to undoing the damage of Transforming Health, to returning services to local hospitals, such as Modbury Hospital in my electorate and to fixing up the health system more broadly.

We also promised to deliver economic change, improving conditions within the South Australian economy so that businesses had a greater capacity to grow, to employ people and to give South Australians much greater economic opportunity. Also, and importantly, we took many commitments around reducing the cost of living for households and also businesses. We take this very seriously and have made a very strong point of delivering on what we said we would do because that trust had been severely damaged in government in general over the last 16 years. That is why, with my colleagues on this side, I am very pleased to oppose the amendment and support the original bill as it was originally intended.

In relation to that, I would like to make the point that it seems that those opposite were not paying attention in primary school during their civics classes because, if they had, they would understand that in our society each of us has rights and responsibilities. Without attempting to embark on a deep, theoretical exploration or distinction between human rights and civil rights, there are certainly rights we all possess as humans by virtue of our humanity, but there are also rights we possess as a result of our civil society having conferred them upon us.

The right to vote is dependent on there being a democratic system of government and, therefore, I would consider it to be a civil right. Whilst of course the maintenance of a civil right should be of the utmost importance for lawmakers, and indeed for the society in possession of the civil right, the nature of the civil right is that it can be removed. This is distinct from a human right in the sense that where there is an absence of a human right it is due to suppression rather than removal.

It is important that, regardless of the category, rights are exercised responsibly and with regard to the need to balance competing rights in respect of the issue we are discussing today— responsibilities. The right to vote is and should be contingent on certain obligations. The single most important obligation is that those expecting a right to vote accept and understand that they have a responsibility to participate in the community and to do so in a way that is consistent with the values of the community.

This amendment seems to suggest that only those who are serving life sentences have committed an act so beyond the standard of acceptable behaviour of our community, while I would consider someone who has committed an act that has resulted in their serving three years or more in prison to have acted in a way far beyond the standard of behaviour our community expects. There is no greater right—indeed privilege—that South Australians have than to elect their government. It is a right that South Australians exercise with full knowledge that their decision will have a profound impact on their life for at least the next four years.

Given the impact that the election of a government has on society, it is important that South Australians can have confidence that others exercising their right to vote do so with the best interests of our state and its people in mind. Without that confidence, confidence in our democracy can begin to wane. A person who has committed an act so egregious that they need to be removed from the community for more than three years clearly has an issue in putting the best interests of our community first. They clearly have trouble understanding that a functioning society requires an acceptance that certain behaviours are, frankly, intolerable.

Most other jurisdictions in Australia recognise that such people have demonstrated that they have no qualms about failing to participate in a positive manner in society and therefore should not be able to vote for the length of their sentence. As others have described, what is being proposed today in this amendment would lead to the ridiculous situation where someone could be barred and unable to vote in a federal election but could vote in a state election.

Some people may argue that we cannot reasonably expect people to comply with the laws of our state if they do not have a say in who is making them; however, these people have demonstrated that even when they do have a say in who is making the laws they are prepared to break them. It is therefore perfectly reasonable, and I believe in line with the expectations of my constituents, that those who commit acts so serious that they are imprisoned for three years or more have their right to vote removed for the length of their sentence.

Certainly, the rehabilitation of those who commit such serious acts is an important goal and one we should all encourage; however, as I was taught as a child and as I continue to teach my children now, actions have consequences. I know from my discussions with the member for King, who has very successfully engaged with our local community in the north-east on this issue, that this is a very strong sentiment coming from many people throughout our community—and, I expect, much broader than just our part of the world—that people very strongly believe there should be consequences for actions. That sentiment is reflected time and time again through multiple comments.

If a person has acted in a way so counter to the expectations of the community that they are imprisoned for three years or more, they must realise that their actions have consequences, and if they are not prepared to be positive contributors to our society, and indeed make a negative contribution, it is only right that they not be permitted to fully participate in society until such time as they are prepared to abide by our laws and expectations.

This amendment is simply not acceptable. It does not conform to the expectations of our community. If a person is to be in prison for three years or more, they must have acted in a manner that is seriously counter to the expectations of our community and they should face the consequences of their actions. To imply that only those serving life sentences have acted so egregiously as to require the removal of their right to vote sends entirely the wrong message to those contemplating committing criminal acts.

We need to send a strong message to those who act outside of community expectations that they need to realise South Australians expect better and that there are consequences for their actions. As I started out with, I think also an important point for us on this side is that it very much is something that we committed to before the election. It is something that we then attempted to deliver on, and it is incredibly disappointing that those opposite have decided that they wish us to go down a different path. For that reason I, like all of us on this side, will be opposing the amendment from the other place.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will move that we send the bill back to the Legislative Council with a very clear message and that is: these amendments are rejected. A day is a long time in politics and while we are sitting here debating this important bill, we find that Mr Deboo has been sentenced. Mr Vivian Deboo has been sentenced to six years, seven months and six days—non-parole period slightly less. He has been sentenced today. The Legislative Council need to hear this, and I hope the ears of the Leader of the Opposition are burning. He came into this house and demanded that this man not be allowed to even apply for home detention so heinous is this man—and he is now going to get a vote.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, Attorney. Member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Deputy Premier is reflecting on a vote in this house on a bill that is before this house.

The CHAIR: My advice, Attorney, is that we cannot accept that motion. We need to vote on the question that is before the Chair, and that is that the amendment be disagreed to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In moving the motion that the amendment be disagreed to, I send, and the people of this House of Assembly should send, quite clearly back to the Legislative Council the very clear message that this is not acceptable. With regard to the duplicitous conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in trying to masquerade out there in Elder territory where Mr Deboo lives that he should not have the right to even live in that street, he should not be allow to predate or be near a school, we understand all that, but the rank hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition—

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —now saying—

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —he can have a vote, is disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. Take a seat, please, Attorney.

Mr ODENWALDER: I assume you are addressing the same point of order as before.

The CHAIR: Yes. The question before the house is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

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