HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:39): I rise today to speak on the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill. This is another one of the Marshall Liberal government's fantastic commitments taken to the last election and one we will be delivering on, as we promised when we went to the 17 March election. I commend all those involved in bringing this to the house. This is a very good bill and one that brings us in line with the rest of the nation and the commonwealth position as well. It is good to be speaking on this piece of legislation, which will ultimately disqualify people who have committed a serious offence from voting in state elections.

The Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill will have the effect that a person who is in custody, in gaol, at the close of the rolls ahead of an election, if that person is serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more, will be ineligible to vote in that South Australian state election. It is pretty clear what the intent of this is. If you are in prison and have done something wrong and you are serving a sentence of more than three years, then you will not be able to vote in that state election.

While canvassing people throughout the election campaign, on the whole people feel that it is pretty fair. If people have not done the right thing and are in gaol for breaking the law, then they cannot have a say in voting for the people who will ultimately be making the laws. At the moment, all prisoners in South Australia can vote in the South Australian state election. The position is not the same in other states, though, so this will help bring us in line with other states in the country. This commitment was taken to the 2018 election and it really puts a stamp on the position we took to the people of South Australia.

The uniformity of this bill will also make it easier for all involved at election time in prisons. If it is a federal election, at the moment people are not allowed to vote if they have been in gaol for more than three years. At a state election, they can vote. It makes it quite confusing and also quite difficult within the system, so this will streamline it and bring everyone onto the same page. Practically, the bill will apply to prisoners within the meaning of the Correctional Services Act 1982 who are serving, as I said, three years or more in prison.

The only difference between this bill and the commonwealth law is in relation to prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more on home detention. That is the key differential here: people on home detention will be ineligible to vote in state elections. The rationale for this is that, in South Australia, home detention is a custodial sentence. To clarify, the difference is that in South Australia, if you are on home detention and you have a home detention sentence of more than three years, you will not be able to vote in the state election.

This bill will not be applied, though, as we differentiate here, to people who are detained under the mental impairment provision of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. I want to be clear on that differential. It is only people who are in gaol serving a sentence for doing the wrong thing and it is a sentence of over 3½ years. When you think about it, that is fair in the community. When you do the wrong thing and you go to gaol, you need to pay the price. People do the time, and in this case they will lose the right to be able to vote in a state election, which will marry up with the federal system.

When I am out speaking to people in my role as minister, or just speaking to people as we are doorknocking or at supermarkets, and this is raised, people give it the nod of approval. They say, 'Look, that is fair. If someone has done something wrong to the point that they have been put in gaol for three or more years, then to lose this right to vote is fair.' It is accepted by the wider community. What must also be noted with this bill is that it does not affect people's ability to enrol on the electoral roll.

In other words, if you are in prison, you can still enrol. Your name will still be kept on the roll, but you will not be able to vote at that election if you are serving a term of more than three years. Under the Electoral Act 1985, you still have the right to be enrolled and, once your sentence is complete, you will be on the roll again and eligible to vote when there is another election. This is a good bill. It is one that I know will seek that nod of approval from the community as people discuss this.

It is an overarching thing. We wanted to be clear with this bill, and we want to be clear with this election commitment: we want to send a very clear message to people who are doing the wrong thing and who go to gaol for three or more years to say, ‘This is not accepted. We don’t accept this behaviour and, as a result of that, you will not be able to vote in a state election.’

That message travels across this bill and it travels into other bills as well. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not be accepting behaviour that society does not accept. That is why we have made it really clear that we will be very strong on our war on drugs. We have outlined our policy at length with that one, and we will be taking action to prevent drugs in prisons and to prevent drugs in schools as well. We know that the community wants strong action in this space, and we do not want to accept what has been served up in the past.

What I do want to say, though, is that we still want to give people a fair opportunity, and that is why we have set this at three or more years. The limit for this is three or more years. If someone goes to prison for under that time, they will still have the opportunity to vote. They will still have the opportunity to have their say. By all means, we want to take firm action against people doing the wrong thing and make sure that they are held to account, but at the same time we want to make sure that people also have the opportunity to make amends, serve their time and get back into the community and contribute to the community as quickly as possible.

One of the key focuses I see here, from a Corrections point of view, is that we are going to make sure that we get people back into the community and contributing to the community as efficiently as possible. People who are in the system cost taxpayers money. The corrections system is expensive, and to keep people incarcerated is an expensive business. What we want to do is try to get people back into the community and get them working in our community—not only just functioning in our community but actually physically working in the community.

That is not only my key focus in this portfolio area but also a key focus of all South Australians—to get people working again, because if you are working in the community you are contributing back to the community. The values of work are so great. For someone with a job, just to have a company shirt, a company hat and go to work for however many hours of the day, week or month gives someone a sense of pride.

Not only that, they are then paying taxes and they are putting back into their community. They are earning for themselves. They are not a burden on society: they are earning for themselves, and they are feeling pride in what they do. They are putting themselves in a position whereby they can buy themselves a car, buy themselves a house and then contribute back to society as well. You hear it said so often, and I say it to my kids as well, ‘Get yourself one job because it will lead to the next and lead to the next and lead to the next.’

People in the corrections system, when they do the wrong thing, by all means need to be called to account and need to have harsh penalties. However, at the same time we want to help rehabilitate these people and get them back out into the community and get them working. It is the key. Getting more people working is a big focus of ours on this side of the chamber. We want to get as many people as possible working in South Australia because if we get them working they will have a sense not only of pride but also of wellbeing. It also benefits their health to be part of a group and part of an organisation contributing back to society and makes them feel wonderfully good about themselves.

We then talk about the financial benefit, that they are actually contributing back to society in terms of paying taxes, helping to fund all the systems we need to keep a state working. It is wonderful to see. When you go out into the community and go to local sports clubs and charity groups, it is great to see so many people who have come from work and who get involved in the community. Invariably, they look to maybe sponsor the local sporting club and sponsor the local charity group. They get involved in planting trees for organisations, or working with the Lions Club or the Rotary Club. People who are working have the wonderful ability to give back and have so much pride in what they are doing.

What I need to say about this bill is that it has the desired effects to make sure that people know that doing the wrong thing will have an impact. If you do the wrong thing and you go to gaol for more than three years, you will not be able to have a say in the state election, married up with what happens at the federal election. Again, the point I stress is that people are accepting of that. At the same time, we want to make sure we give people an opportunity to work their way back into society and give back across the board. It is really key.

This is one of myriad election commitments we made going into the 17 March election. A lot of them were in the 100-day plan. It is wonderful to be working through and ticking off those 100-day actions, as we are committed to doing. I know everyone on our side is very focused on doing that. We have made it abundantly clear to the community. All our commitments were outlined online, so that people could see them. As members on our side know, when we went doorknocking, when we would say to people, 'This is what we are going to do; this is when we are going to do it,' it was really well received. I think that is a big part of the reason we won the state election.

The Premier has been outstanding and has kept everyone to account from a ministerial point of view, with great support from the people in our party room. It has been wonderful to have that support. We are going through, ticking the boxes, and everyone can see very clearly exactly what we are doing and delivering as a government. When I am out speaking to people, be it in my community or in my role as minister, that is the number one tick that comes to me that people are saying about this new Premier. He has been very clear, very up-front, and every person has been delivering in whatever role they have in this party.

That is what I like about being in this team: it is a team. Everyone is focused on the same outcome: delivering for South Australia. This is just one bill that was a commitment we made that we took to the election, and now we are delivering on that. It may not impact that many people in our state, but what they know and understand is that it is a commitment we made, a commitment we are delivering on and a commitment we are following through with.

The ESL is another commitment that has been very well received. To return that remission to South Australians and to put money back in their pockets is a bigger commitment. Like this Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill commitment, the ESL was a big commitment that puts money back into the pockets of South Australians. That is what South Australian families want to see. The cost of living and the cost-of-living pressures that South Australians experienced under the previous Labor government were becoming too much to bear. Again, we on this side, as we go around and speak to people in our communities, hear that message resonating loudly and clearly.

The Treasurer's commitment to return that remission means that ultimately that $90 million per year goes back into the pockets of all South Australians. If you have a house that is valued at around $470,000, it puts about $145—I think it is about $144.85, let's count it to the cent—back into the pockets of South Australians. That is a commitment that we took to the election. We made that commitment a long way out from the election, and we have now delivered on that commitment. These commitments are being ticked off as we go along.

Rate capping is another commitment that we are going to deliver to the people of South Australia, obviously. There is a lot of debate about deregulating shop trading hours, but that is another commitment we took to the election that we will deliver on. We will continue to deliver on all of those commitments.

In fact, I was speaking to some of the members on my side before about our speed camera audit and making sure we deliver on that commitment as well—and we will. We will make sure that speed cameras and safety cameras are in the right locations and that people know they are not about revenue raising. That is what they have felt over the past 16 years, that speed cameras were there for revenue raising. We know that speed cameras do a good job. Safety cameras do a good job. They do keep people safe. However, we need to take people on the journey to make sure that they know they are in the right locations for the right reasons. Another one of our commitments will be to make sure that the speed camera audit and the safety camera audit will be delivered to South Australians.

These things are vitally important. As we look around our community and as we all go out into our community, that is what people appreciate about this Marshall-led team. I am very proud to be a part of that team and see all my colleagues deliver on the commitments that we made. It was a bold agenda we set for the first 100 days. My wife reminds me of that every day and night that I am not at home, when we are working hard early in the morning and late at night. That is what we are here for. That is what we want to deliver for South Australia. On our side of the chamber, every person is out there doing their bit to make sure that we deliver on our commitments for our state.

I can speak for the people of my side, and I know that that is why everyone here got into this job—because we want to deliver outcomes for South Australia. There are a number of outcomes in my portfolio that I am really keen to work on with all the local members. We made a lot of commitments during the election for local communities and local regions, and we on this side understand very much that local communities and local regions need to be supported. They need to be listened to, and they need to be supported, and during the election campaign that was exactly what we did.

The Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill was a small part of the conversations we had with our community. I look at the other members on my side of the chamber, and the member for Heysen in particular I know wore out his shoe leather doorknocking around his local area, making sure he was listening to what people wanted, and that was truly impressive. I cannot commend everyone on this side of the chamber enough for the great work that they did. That folds into delivering on our commitments.

The Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill was one of those small commitments we made that we are delivering on, but it is also those things that we committed to our local regions. From a sporting sense, as the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, we made a number of commitments to local communities for improved changerooms, improved sports facilities and improved access to amenities and facilities. They are the things that communities really appreciate, and they are things we need to be 100 per cent focused on, and we will be delivering on all those commitments.

It is exciting to know those things that we want to deliver on and to know those commitments we have made. Again, on this side of the house we want to deliver them all yesterday. We want to do it all yesterday because it is exciting, and we want to do that for our communities. We understand it takes a little bit of time, and we need to work our way through these commitments, but we will be delivering on them all, and it is exciting to know that we will. I really look forward to working with all members on my side.

The member for Newland and I did a lot of work together around the Tea Tree Gully-Banksia Park area where there is a great netball/tennis club that we worked very closely with. He did an outstanding job in his community to garner the support of the local community, get them on board, and secure a commitment to deliver great outcomes for that tennis and netball facility. I really look forward to working with him in delivering that for his local community. He deserves all the plaudits for making everyone there aware of the need and then also making sure he got the commitment to deliver through on that. He is also a big advocate for Gymsports in his local area; in fact, I look forward to the day when we go down there and I see him on a trampoline doing some of his fantastic moves. I know he has it all nailed down.

The member for Finniss is also a great advocate for his community. I know there will be projects delivered for his community as well because that is a wonderful community. What you do notice about the regions—and I have spent time growing up in the regions as well—is that people are very passionate about their local lot, though they do not like to make a lot of noise. They just like to go about their business and do their thing. In the past, under the previous government a lot of the regions were overlooked, and that is not good enough. We need to make sure that our regions are given the resources and the respect that they deserve. So we are making sure we do that and that we deliver on that front for our regions.

I hope the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill does not impact too many South Australians. It will impact on those who go to gaol for three or more years at the time of a state election, and it will tie them into the federal scheme as well—they will be under the same regime as the commonwealth. It is probably not a commitment that will impact on many South Australians, but what it does and what it says, and the underlying factor that really comes through in moving this amendment to this bill, is that we are delivering on our commitments. The Marshall Liberal team is delivering on their commitments, and that is the government we all set out to be. It is the government we want to be for South Australia, and it is very much the government that South Australians want.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:58): I rise also to speak in support of the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill 2018. As other speakers on this side of the house before me have emphasised, this bill is making good on yet another commitment of the new Marshall Liberal government. It is important to emphasise that this is part of a very detailed series of commitments that were made for the electorate throughout the campaign. The electorate had full and thorough notice that this was on the agenda, and we are delivering on this commitment.

The bill is about ensuring that there are effective penalties in place in respect of serious crimes. We have committed to ensuring that penalties imposed by the courts deter criminals and adequately punish those who commit serious offences. If offending is serious enough to warrant a significant prison term, then there is a need to ensure that is recognised by the deprivation of certain civil liberties.

The crimes of those who find themselves sentenced to significant terms of imprisonment need to be recognised so that law-abiding citizens are not unnecessarily and unduly meeting any more than is necessary in relation to the substantial cost of keeping prisoners incarcerated. A key part of the commitment is about ensuring appropriate deterrence against serious crime. It is a serious deprivation of civil liberty to remove the entitlement to vote, and it is a commitment that is driven around ensuring that there is a significant deterrence element as a result.

By maintaining a consistent and principled approach to justice, we will also ensure that we maintain and increase the confidence of the community in relation to both the operation of our system of justice and an ongoing contribution to community safety. The penalty ought always insofar as practicable fit the crime. The deprivation of voting rights in relation to those sentenced to significant terms of imprisonment is part of that. Indeed, convicted criminals serving significant terms of imprisonment are in many countries subjected to similar restriction.

The deprivation has a long history, being introduced in the UK as long ago as 1870. I will have some more to say in a moment about the history and jurisprudence in that regard. Federally, as members are aware, as the law presently stands no person sentenced to three or more years' imprisonment can vote in a federal election. South Australia is the only state that does not impose restrictions depriving a right to vote. Other states have a range of responses in this area, and I will touch on those in a moment.

South Australia is joining other states, and indeed the commonwealth, in imposing a regime for the deprivation of voting rights in these circumstances. This is making good directly on the commitment I have just described. The bill, in its substantive operative provisions, is structured in terms of an amendment to section 69 of the Electoral Act and in particular the insertion of new section 69(3), which specifies that a designated person will not be entitled to vote at the election. A designated person is then defined in new section 69(5) as a person:

…serving 1 or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for 1 or more offences against a law of this state, the commonwealth or another state or territory; and (ii) the total period of imprisonment or detention liable to be served is 3 years or more;

In short, it is setting the bar at a term of imprisonment to be served at three years or more. Importantly, I note that the operation of clause 69(3) and the definition of 'designated person' does not include a person detained under part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935; that is, the part dealing with orders in relation to mental impairment. That is the structure of the new regime. It sets the bar at a period of imprisonment to be served of three years or more.

To set out some context, the denial of civil rights for those convicted of crimes has a long and what has been described as ancient origin. Essentially, it is a product of the notion that the commission of an offence has the effect of divesting a person of their property and legal rights. Historically, one might compare the capital penalty of death by execution; those who did not suffer death by execution would nevertheless suffer a form of civil death in terms of their incarceration. The idea, at its origin, was to emulate the results that a natural death would produce.

These are fundamental concepts of the deprivation of civil rights that are very much flowing directly from the imposition of a civil penalty. Of course, the death penalty has long been abolished in all Australian jurisdictions, but it may be said that as a matter of principle a form of civil death remains insofar as the deprivation of liberty, property and, in relation to this bill, the deprivation of the civil right to vote at a state election. So the principle is about the deprivation of a civil right and it is, like the imposition of a sentence of a defined period of time, a deprivation of the right to vote also for a defined and limited time.

The history of legislation relating to the deprivation of voting rights goes back federally to the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 which, to start with, proceeded on the basis of, rather than considering sentences actually imposed by courts, considering the nature of the crime and whether or not it was punishable by a particular term of imprisonment. So rather than, at the outset, asking the court to determine whether the threshold was met in the particular circumstances of the person to be sentenced, the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 considered the crime and whether the particular crime was punishable by a term of imprisonment.

At the time of the enactment of the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, that period was one year or longer. So, as it was originally enacted federally, the test was conviction and under sentence for any offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer. Shortly after that in relative terms, with the enactment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, essentially the same structure was retained in the federal legislation under that new act, substantially until 1983, when the disqualification was amended to apply to persons who were under sentence for an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or longer.

So the adjustment federally in 1983 was to render the civil deprivation threshold that much higher but still proceed in relation to the nature of the offence and whether it was punishable by a term of imprisonment for five years or longer. To illustrate that, it may be that under that structure a court may not have actually sentenced a person to a period of five years or more of imprisonment but, if the crime for which that person was being sentenced was punishable by five years or more, then the act would apply and the deprivation of voting rights would apply in that case.

There have since been reforms at the federal level to move from that structure of whether the crime for which a person is to be sentenced is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a particular period to a test based on the period of imprisonment to be actually served. That is the structure that is applied in this bill and in other jurisdictions. That amendment came in federally in 1995 to move from 'punishable' to 'serving a sentence of'.

The commonwealth act, as it presently stands, sets out that provision in section 93(8AA). As it presently stands, this act applies to a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or longer. The process of amendment and reform in the commonwealth area has brought us to the point we are at in relation to the bill before the house.

As I have indicated already, there is not only the commonwealth legislation but also various models of similar legislation applying the deprivation of voting rights in the other states of Australia. They broadly follow two models, the first of which is legislation that is tied to the commonwealth provisions. We see in the Queensland Electoral Act, for example, a regime that describes the deprivation of voting rights in terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it is enacted from time to time.

The other example, and they vary somewhat, is those states that have over time enacted their own regimes providing for the deprivation of voting rights. In Victoria, for example, the deprivation of voting rights is to be found in Victoria's Constitution Act 1975 at section 48. At section 48(2), the Victorian provision provides that a person who, firstly, has been convicted of treason under the law of Victoria, or treason or treachery under the law of the commonwealth or a state or territory, or a person who is serving a sentence of five years' imprisonment or more for an offence against the law of Victoria, the commonwealth or another state or territory, and other categories also, but importantly subsection (2)(b), will not be entitled to be enrolled as an elector for the council or the assembly in that state.

The threshold in Victoria, therefore, is set at a term of five years' imprisonment, again using the model that is, as far as I am aware, now universally adopted throughout the Australian jurisdictions and that is applying to the period of imprisonment actually to be served, as opposed to the structure that was in place under the earlier commonwealth legislation, focusing on the nature of the offence and the sentence for which that offending was punishable.

Another example, and at the other end of the scale, is to be found in Western Australia's Electoral Act 1907. At section 18, that act operates to disqualify any person who is serving or is yet to serve a sentence or sentences of detention or imprisonment that total one year or longer. One can see that, while the periods of time differ from state to state, the principle of the serving of a sentence with a threshold period of time is a common approach to the deprivation of the civil liberty of the right to vote across the jurisdictions of Australia.

Importantly, this bill being, as far as I am aware, the most recent iteration of such legislation to be debated across Australia, it may not be surprising that, firstly, this bill adopts the structure of the period of imprisonment to be served; that, secondly, it charts its own course, rather than tying that trajectory to whatever the position in the commonwealth may be from time to time; and that, thirdly, it adopts, by reference to the other states, a middle path, setting three years' imprisonment as the threshold, which happens to accord with the position presently as it applies under commonwealth legislation. It is an appropriate updating of the relevant regime and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (16:21): I also rise to commend the bill. The amendment prevents prisoners who are serving a term of three years or longer, including those in home detention, from voting in state elections. It brings our state into line with other states, all the Australian jurisdictions, except the ACT. The bill does not change prisoners' enrolment status and they will be able to vote again upon release. This would affect about 1,400 current prisoners out of a total of about 3,100.

To be subject to a prison sentence of three years or more means that you have been found guilty of something very serious. There must be serious consequences. It is no small thing to take away a person's right to vote, an essential foundation of a democracy like South Australia. However, in democracy the rule of law is also an essential foundation and is paramount. Those who seriously break the law are effectively undermining this foundation.

Those of us in this place and the other place should not need or want the support of serious offenders and criminals at elections. We recognise that our system of justice and corrections is based on the principle of rehabilitation. Punishment imposed by the state should not extend beyond the sentence. A good example of rehabilitation services can be found at the Cadell Training Centre in the Riverland. Last week was the 58th anniversary of its official opening in 1960.

The centre is situated on approximately 1,600 hectares of land, where up to 210 low-security male inmates work on citrus and olive orchards, as well as a dairy farm. It supplies produce to other prisons, and businesses can even buy these products. I think that some of our state hospitals might even have some Cadell milk on their menus. Inmates at Cadell are involved in community work, including the local fire brigade.

This is the essence of rehabilitation—providing inmates with vocational training so that they are better prepared to enter the workforce upon their release and become productive members of society by exposing them to good role models, like volunteers of the CFS. Some of the skills they pick up on the farm certainly also help them with that rehabilitation and make sure that they are fit for the society they re-enter.

The daily routine on a dairy farm is enormous and the skills of commitment that the inmates learn in that process include the early rising for the early milking in the morning. The first thing they have to do when they get up is prepare the milking shed for the upcoming milking. The next thing they have to do, most likely on a motorbike or a quad, is head out and muster the cows for that milking. As they do that, they have to make decisions about what gates to open and shut ready for the next grazing those cows will need to head for after they have been milked.

After getting back to the dairy, they have to set up the milking plant to commence milking, check to see that the milk currently in the vat is cold, make sure that the tanker has been to collect the milk overnight and make sure that the milk has been collected for processing. Starting the milking machine, checking the vacuum pump and checking the vacuum levels are right are all decisions these inmates have to make as they go through their daily routine.

They have to start the feed system. The cows are fed in the dairy as they are milked. These are decisions that these inmates have to make. As each cow comes in, they need to check that the cows are clean to make sure that the milk is of the highest quality. They need to check whether the cow has mastitis. They need to check whether there are any cuts to the teats. If everything is okay, the milk can then proceed to be milked into the vat for future processing; if not, another decision has to be made: they have to decide whether that milk needs to be dumped or not. They do this with every single cow as she enters the shed, so decision after decision is made by the inmates.

These are responsibilities that are put in their hands on a daily basis. These are the decisions they make that they are learning have consequences. As the milking goes on, they also have to make decisions about whether any cows need to be kept in to be treated or inseminated for any matings that need to be done. This continues through the first couple of hours of their working day. At the end of the milking, they then need to clean the shed, they need to wash the dairy yard and they need to wash the milking shed itself.

Mr RAU: Point of order: I appear to have lost my way. I am sort of hallucinating that we are having a conversation about animal husbandry and, in particular, dairy farmers—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, member for Enfield, your point of order is?

Mr RAU: Relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relevance. Member for Enfield, I did anticipate that point of order, and my ruling from earlier today was that I felt members should be free to contribute to a bill and relate that bill back to their own electorate, should they feel the need to do that. I will listen carefully. I understand that the member represents a dairying sector within his electorate, so I will listen and ensure that he relates that to the bill at hand.

Mr RAU: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Should I take that as an invitation for me to relate future bills to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: To your electorate?

Mr RAU: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has been my ruling. If you feel you need to do that, you may, member for Enfield. Member for Finniss.

Mr BASHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Certainly, I understand that this is very much relevant to my electorate and the dairy farmers of the electorate. The skills learned by the inmates make these ideal people to work on their farms, and we want them to be responsible citizens going forward.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Don't waste time voting: learn about milking cows.

Mr BASHAM: Yes, get back into society and understand that the decisions you make have consequences and that the decisions that have put you into prison that led to a three-year term and to lose this right are certainly part of that decision making. I think it is fantastic to get back to being able to learn the skills of dairy farming, and there are numerous skills that farmers continue to use on a day-to-day basis, and these inmates learn those skills as though go.

As I was saying, when milking has concluded it is very important to understand the cleanliness, etc., that is required to make sure that the dairy functions well and that the milk is safe, and, again, that is such an important decision that those inmates have to make on a daily basis. We cannot risk the lives of others by making mistakes in a dairy shed, so we need to make sure that these inmates understand that as they go.

I guess the other decisions that have to be made following the milking are around the feeding of the animals and making sure that they are cared for and receiving their daily requirements in feed. The inmates must also understand the learnings of pasture management and make sure that they are actually learning the skills needed and understand the consequences of actions in the field. They must make sure that the timing is right in respect of getting crops in, getting pastures in, and make sure that they respond to upcoming rains and that irrigation is also applied as appropriate.

These are all skills that these inmates learn and then understand the decisions that go on from there. They also have general maintenance requirements. They learn huge skills in terms of their rehabilitation in making them perfect employees as they enter back into life to make them part of the community and be able to vote again once their sentence is completed. We see skills, such as maintenance, as I mentioned before, on things like tractors that are also very important.

Also, with water management and making sure that the cattle have water, etc., they are learning the skills a plumber maybe learnt in their trade. There are many things that farmers learn as they go, and inmates are like all other farmers. The decision-making is such a strong and important part of becoming a very productive member of the community, as is accepting the responsibility of those decisions.

I see that this bill puts another onus on the members of our society to realise that there are consequences as a result of their actions. So, as people make an error of judgement and break a law that results in their being sentenced to three years of gaol or more, they lose probably one of the most basic rights of a democracy—that is, the right to vote. I think it is really quite important that people actually understand how important that right to vote is.

This bill recognises the fact that, if someone has committed a serious offence that leads to a sentence of three years or more, that right should be sacrificed. As I stand here speaking about this bill, I really encourage others to support it going forward. It is such an important part of our society to make sure that we rehabilitate prisoners in the best way we can.

I think the work that is done at Cadell is fantastic in that regard. I am proud to think that they have seen the dairy industry as something they can use to support prisoners in their rehabilitation. They even go to the next step of not just farming the milk but also then processing the milk, putting it into bottles and using it in prisons and other areas. It is amazing, the skills that are learnt there.

In closing, I express my support for this bill, which fulfils another election commitment by the Marshall government.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (16:35): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill and express to my fellow members of parliament how important it is that this bill be put through. As we well know, this bill will enable sanctions against prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting in state elections. It is a measure that should be without argument, as it stands to reason that an individual who commits a crime terrible enough to warrant a three-year sentence, or more, should not be given the privilege of contributing to the outcome of the most important election and should in fact be punished for their crimes.

Why should someone who is willing to take from or harm the community of South Australia then be able to contribute and participate in the democracy that forms the future of the same state? It is a fundamental fact that our democracy enables the people of South Australia to appoint those whom they believe will do what is good and right for them and the community. How can we allow people who have disregarded this concept then to actively contribute to this most important process of selecting leaders for the state?

Of course, once they have served their term and suffered this time and punishment, it seems right that they may then be given the opportunity to vote once again. This gives them a second chance, a chance to understand that the right to vote is a privilege and may only be reinstated upon the completion of their sentence. It reinforces the fact that they have done wrong not only by others in the community but by themselves, cutting off such privileges as being part of the community and having a say in its future.

With this bill estimated to affect approximately 1,400 out of 3,114 South Australian prisoners, as at April 2018, it is certainly worth thought. That is, over a third of South Australian prisoners with prison sentences up to or exceeding three years is a large enough number for us and the public of South Australia to be concerned about in terms of their impact on this vital vote. With Mount Gambier Prison housing a maximum of 489 inmates, I understand that this change would impact inmates located at the prison both from my neighbouring electorate and from other electorates of the state, and justifiably so. I mention this prison as it is located within the Limestone Coast region, which encompasses my own electorate of MacKillop as well as the electorate seat of Mount Gambier.

I believe that it is also important to note that this amendment will stretch to encompass those serving three years under home detention. Given that the concept of detainment remains the same, that the individual in question is under the same sanctions as any other prisoner, it stands to reason that they should also incur the same sanctions with regard to voting in the state election. Young offenders involved in serious crime, detained in training centres under the Young Offenders Act 1993, would also be addressed by this judgement, and rightly so.

I would also like to note that, in my opinion, this should be seen as yet another strategy in the approach to rehabilitate felons. For any individual who wishes to maintain their inclusion in the community and the workings of the state, this serves as a further incentive to maintain good behaviour. It may not be viewed as the be-all and end-all for influencing offenders' behaviour after they have served their sentence, but one could clearly argue that no-one is happy to live with the thought of being excluded from something so important as the right to vote. Everyone has something to say, and it is the most frustrating and sometimes heartbreaking situation not to have the opportunity to be heard or to contribute.

In this way, and as the Minister for Correctional Services stated earlier, it is also vitally important to continue to implement the rehabilitation and training services for inmates and those newly released from prison to continue to uphold this concept of contribution to society in a constructive way. In Mount Gambier Prison, it has been provided that inmates have access to education, vocational training and therapeutic program activities—all provisions that will encourage inmates to distance themselves from, possibly, repeat offences, and instead act as functioning members of the community with all the rights entitled to them, such as the right to vote.

A healthy respect for the privilege of democracy and the importance of working as part of this will serve to emphasise the image of prison as a deterrent, as an unnecessary and unwanted outcome to their behaviour, so that they may be less inclined to repeat their offences and have that privilege stripped away from them, along with other privileges of choice and freedom. As one is put into a detention system and given three years or more—and, obviously, we are talking about their voting rights being stripped away—clearly we understand there is a lot more to it than just voting rights when they are incarcerated in a prison system.

They miss out on all the privileges of choice, and they have to conform to a procedure that is out of their hands. They are in a world where choices have been stripped away, and this voting privilege is just going to be part of that process that we see and have seen over many years gone by. One thing I hope, and I believe this government will actually take hold of, is that once these terms have been completed by prisoners we do our utmost to re-educate and rebuild their commitment or their fit back into the community so that they are what we call good citizens, law-abiding and contributing in some shape or fashion.

As the member for MacKillop, and coming from a farming background, I have dealt with the shearing industry, and I have worked at Port Adelaide in a metal shipyard boatbuilding industry with 20-odd different nationalities. I have come across ex-inmates in my career, and most interesting is one I came across who put the wind up a small group of workers on my property while we were lamb marking. Obviously, I have a number of sheep to lamb mark, and we engage a contractor who brings in a few casual workers to help with that process. We bring our farmhands into that as well, and we can find five or six fellas running around lamb marking a group of sheep.

One of those new fellas brought in by the contractor was a fellow called Tony. As you talked and mixed with these characters, you learnt about Tony's history. What was fascinating was that he was covered in a few tattoos, and he was a bit rougher than most you would come across in our neck of the woods. Tony had been in prison, but it was an absolute delight to work with him. I can tell you that the influence Tony had in our workforce was a great deal of respect because you never knew how he might react if you said something incorrectly to him

One fascinating thing was that my lamb-marking contractor, who employed Tony, was a bit tardy on his payments for work and hours done. But once my contractor knew that Tony had a background that may not have been as honourable as others, there was no disregard or respect lost to Tony. I know that Tony was paid in a very true and accurate time frame and that he was treated with a great deal of respect. I suppose Tony was unfortunate to have spent time in the prison system. He told stories around the lamb-marking cradle, and he was also involved with some prison inmates in his time there who had done some acts that most of us would probably rather stay away from.

One thing you have to have an appreciation of is that as humans we all make mistakes, that we all deserve a fair go and that we all deserve a second round at life. As a government, we have a training system in place and rehabilitation in place. We have a system in place that looks after those who have done their time, who have made their mistake and who move back into life and the workforce and back into family life, where they can be constructive, respected and deserve their right to vote to choose a government that hopefully looks after more and more people like those who have just done their time.

In stripping away rights in prison, we also have to bear in mind that we can go overboard with those rights. It is one thing to incarcerate people and remove them from society, but they must also be able to function and realise that there is a way out if they have been given that privilege—in other words, it is not a life sentence upon a life sentence. When we do think about these extra punishments, and taking away their voting rights, this is not the start of just taking away and away, until there is nothing left at all.

I hope that this bill serves as another reminder that, when you do wrong and have to do your time, privileges are stripped away. This is just one of those. When we as a society go along to the polling booths to vote, it is a privilege, and it can be taken away from us all if we walk away from society's rules, law and order. That reminds me of when I was privileged enough to be on the Water Catchment Board for six years, between 1998 and 2004, and we were making up the rules and laws for water allocation.

It was well pointed out to us as a board that 90 per cent of society abides by the laws and rules and that the other 10 per cent do not care at all. When you make a law or rule, just remember that there are 10 per cent who will not read it and will not abide by it. We have to have rules and laws that encourage them to take notice, and we know that we will have to use them because of this 10 per cent who will not listen, do not learn and do not care.

A healthy respect for the privilege of democracy and the importance of working as a part of it will serve to emphasise the image of prison as a deterrent, an unnecessary and unwanted outcome to their behaviour, so that they may be less inclined to repeat the offences and have that privilege stripped away along with other privileges of choice and freedom. It should definitely be reiterated that the prisoners' ineligibility is only temporary. Once they have done their time, they will recover their right to vote with no changes made to their enrolment status.

This is a fair and reasonable sanction as attested by the commonwealth position and the rest of Australia. Once again, we see South Australia lagging behind on important legislation thanks to the previous administration and their lack of drive and sense. This must be rectified for the people of the state and for South Australia itself.

I would like to circle back to my initial statements and ask honourable members: in your eyes, would you want to reward those who have done wrong by the laws you have worked so hard to implement for the betterment of the people of South Australia and the state as a whole? Does it make sense that these individuals should be entitled to the same right to dictate the future of this state as those who have strived every day to function decently in the community, abiding by and respecting those same laws?

It does not do the good people of South Australia justice to undermine this privilege by allowing others who have actively demonstrated their concurrent lack of such respect to also maintain this privilege. As the Attorney-General so aptly put it, it is an affront that people who commit serious criminal offences are entitled to elect the parliament that makes the law they have broken. We know this to be a sentiment shared by the vast majority of the people of South Australia, hence the presence of this bill in the Liberal Party's election promises and its reappearance now. In summation, I commend this bill to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, if you speak you will close the debate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:48): I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. Again, it was interesting, entertaining and educative in relation to all the opportunities that our prisoners have in the future for employment, retraining and reskilling. It is excellent to see our new members being so agile in their discussion in this area. It appears not only that they are well versed in what opportunities are out there but they are happy to sing the praises of that being pursued. The only matter I would otherwise like to say in response to—

Mr Picton: We have an agreement for you not to do this, not to close the debate, because you have not briefed us.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I beg your pardon. I am sorry. I was thinking it was the next bill. I am happy to suspend whatever is necessary. I apologise. I had the wrong bill, but I have been reminded by the member for Kaurna that the opposition are having a briefing on this bill in the morning and therefore are seeking to make a contribution to the debate. Accordingly, whatever apology I need to make, I am happy to do that. Can I somehow rescind your direction to close the debate? I will continue my remarks another time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think what we might do is get the member for Kaurna to adjourn debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Picton.

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