HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2020.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:04): I rise to speak to the Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill. It makes quite a range of amendments in regard to correctional services in this state. I note that in my electorate in Murray Bridge we host Mobilong Prison, which has been there since 1987, and I will discuss that a little later in my contribution.

The first of the matters that have been dealt with in this Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Bill is the disclosure of information relating to criminal history. Amendments have been made to the criminal intelligence provisions in section 7 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 in connection with new section 85CB which now allows the chief executive to obtain certain information which may include information in the nature of criminal intelligence from the Commissioner of Police. The Department for Correctional Services consulted with South Australia Police to ensure these provisions were operationally feasible for both agencies.

The use of remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, being flown over prisons is obviously a security issue for all correctional jurisdictions, even more so now with remotely piloted aircraft becoming increasingly advanced in technology and more accessible to the general public. While the commonwealth regulates airspace, it is a matter for each state to decide how to deal with remotely piloted aircraft in relation to prison security. This bill now makes it an offence to operate an unmanned aircraft within 100 metres of a correctional institution without the permission of the chief executive. The remotely piloted aircraft can also be seized if found in a prison environment.

The bill will introduce prison buffer zones for the purpose of possession of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act 1984. Buffer zones will prove to further prevent the introduction of contraband into prisons. Currently, the point where a person becomes guilty of an offence is when the contraband is already inside the prison. The penalties in this section have been determined based on the seriousness of the offence of bringing drugs and contraband into a prison. These offences in the community are serious offences but the intent and action required to introduce these items into a prison is a clear and deliberate decision by a person to introduce dangerous and prohibited items.

This type of calculated and conscious decision deserves the increased penalty. The amendment is specifically worded to ensure that people who have a legitimate excuse to possess or introduce an item are not captured in this section. The introduction of buffer zones in this section has been carefully considered to ensure the protection of those people who are lawfully conducting their business while specifically targeting those with the intent to introduce dangerous items and substances into our prisons.

Penalties will also be increased for possession of unauthorised mobile telephones within a prison buffer zone. The intention is for these zones to be similar to school zones in which the sale, supply or administration of a controlled drug is prohibited. In regard to official visitors, significant amendments have been made to provisions relating to the inspection of prisons. Section 20(1) of the current act provides very basic provisions enabling the appointment and visiting functions of independent inspectors to visit prisons.

The changes will mean that the Department for Correctional Services will continue to be supported by an independent contemporary and transparent scheme. Current inspectors, known as visiting inspectors, are volunteers who carry out independent regular inspections across all South Australian prisons. Whilst a critical program in its current format, the bill will now ensure that South Australia complies with the inspection requirements of places of detention under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 and the associated optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, which the commonwealth government ratified on 21 December 2017.

The official visitors scheme will establish a group of independent, appropriately skilled visitors who meet the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture requirements, which will also meet the contemporary needs of a prisoner population, including specialists in mental health and wellbeing and Aboriginal representatives. In regard to the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner and the prescribed class, currently a decision of the Parole Board in relation to the release of a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment is subject to review by the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner (PARC) on application by the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of Police or the Commissioner for Victims' Rights.

The bill introduces an important change that will expand the definition of a reviewable decision of the board by introducing a prescribed class of prisoner, which in addition to including prisoners serving a sentence of life imprisonment for an offence will also include prisoners sentenced to offences including conspiring, assisting or soliciting to commit murder (section 12 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935), as well as offences of impeding investigation of offences or assisting offenders as an accessory (section 241(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act) if the offence established by the principal offender is the offence of murder.

This amendment will provide greater protection to victims and the community by providing a further level of review in regard to decisions to release on parole offenders who have been sentenced in relation to serious offending relating to the offence of murder. Restraints are to be used on prisoners in certain circumstances. There are currently no provisions for the use of restraints on prisoners during their transfer and/or movement within or outside of the prison system to ensure their own safety, the safety of staff and the safety of the public.

This bill provides for the circumstances in which restraints may be applied to prisoners. This inclusion allows the Department for Correctional Services to use restraints in some circumstances without constituting a use of force. This will allow restraints to be used during the transporting of prisoners, or if they are temporarily detained in a non-secure location—for example, during hospital treatment or while attending a funeral—in addition to an internal movement.

In relation to management of officers, employees of the department, the provisions for the additional powers of the chief executive are aligned with those found in other legislation. In regard to the obligation to provide an honest account of an incident, this does not remove the right for an individual to remain silent if incriminated, nor does it diminish an individual's rights as a public servant. The bill does, however, provide protection against staff and the 'blue code of silence' for officers not reporting on a colleague's errors, misconduct or a potential criminal offence. The bill gives power to the chief executive, where he has been previously unable to act, to remove and reassign an officer if he has lost confidence in the suitability of the employee to continue working in the correctional institution.

That is essentially the substance of the bill, and I just want to make a few comments about some of the history of Mobilong Prison in my electorate. Mobilong opened way back in 1987. It is a male prison with low to medium security prisoners. It has a capacity now of 472, with quite a few independent-style living units, and you must be drug free to have the ability to live in these units. My understanding is that, when it opened, the prison had a capacity of 150, so it has increased significantly. Some of this increase was through the former treasurer and former member for Port Adelaide, Kevin Foley, and his 'rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em' days, and so obviously the capacity has gone up significantly.

There was a recent build in the last few years of some more of these independent units. A group of prisoners lives in this accommodation. They have allowances paid to them on a weekly or fortnightly basis and they manage their own budgetary affairs in regard to purchases of food supplies, etc., and manage their own catering. It is teaching them life skills along the way. The accommodation-type, cottage-style independent living units can accommodate up to eight prisoners, and I know a lot of these were built with I think five separate rooms all in the one caged-off unit. There has been more capacity created by doubling up some of the individual rooms in these cottages. The prison is now smoke free, and that is no mean feat in the modern age with prisoners.

A range of programs is delivered at Mobilong, which includes case management services, education and vocational training, the Making Changes Program, the Alcohol and Other Drugs: Medium Intensity Program, and the Violence Prevention Program. It has been interesting on visits there as a local member and on a voluntary basis (I have always been let out) to see the prisoners attending these programs. Some of them have been quite happy to discuss how these programs are going and helping with their rehabilitation.

The prison also provides for up to 16 greyhounds to be trained for reintegration as domestic pets through the South Australian Greyhound Adoption Program.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Hammond. Minister for Correctional Services, I have to inform you that there are not to be any staff members in the gallery at the moment because that is reserved for speakers during this time. So could your staff member go around to the attendants and work it out that way. Thank you for that. Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: This Greyhound Adoption Program is a fantastic program that is not only instituted in prisons but across South Australia at various venues. The greyhound track in Adelaide works with this, and Greyhound South Australia, and obviously the new facilities at Murray Bridge. Great work is done to rehome the greyhounds, and I have witnessed it myself in Mobilong Prison.

Also, in regard to industry, the prison has a large workshop and assembly area, a kitchen, a bakery, electrical component assembly, building products, metal fabrication, workshop products, e-waste recycling, plastic component assembly and firewood and kindling packaging. Back in the day, the prison used to do external catering for Murray Bridge and Districts. I remember, although it is quite a few years ago now, my sister was an entrant in the Miss South Australia Quest and we ran an event in Murray Bridge. The prison did the catering, and it was very good catering, for that event. My sister organised a fashion parade that night I think at the community club in Murray Bridge and I was one of the so-called male models for the evening—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: If she didn't win it was your fault.

Mr PEDERICK: The minister indicates that if she didn't win it was my fault, so I will wear that. I think you are correct. It was quite a funny night from memory. It was a long time ago—decades ago—and it was quite amusing, as we had friends lined up to be models, whether female or male, and no-one had any airs or graces. We had to get changed in the same room and everyone just roared in, got changed and got back out there with whatever they had to wear. Sadly, I was probably the reason she did not win. It just goes to show what used to happen inside the prison. They used to have basketball games there with the local community—obviously, they played all home matches—but that has not happened for quite a long time.

It has been a place that has also supplied massive employment for Murray Bridge and surrounding districts. People are obviously concerned about the impact a prison can have on a community and people had those concerns pre-1987, with the prison being built. I think a lot of concerns are exemplified in what happened in 2006, the year I was elected. I am pretty sure the budget that year was laid down in September. It was interesting that the former member for Croydon, Michael Atkinson of blessed memory—

Mr Odenwalder: May he rest in peace.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is not dead yet, as far as I know.

Mr PEDERICK: Well, of blessed memory to this place; I know he is alive and well. The announcement that the new men's and women's prisons were to be built on land at Mobilong turned up in The Advertiser, and that land is still there. It created a lot of controversy and it was quite disgraceful actually.

This was the 'announce and defend' policy of the former Labor government and these projects were worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The mayor of the Rural City of Murray Bridge at the time, Allan Arbon, contacted me and he said, 'What the hell?' I said, 'I know as much as you do.' Even as a new member, I think I got to ask three questions that afternoon in question time on what was going on.

We know what happened in the running of this. This was supposed to be a public-private partnership and a big reason it failed was the lack of consultation. In fact, I remember going to council meetings in Murray Bridge. This was supposed to be the replacement for Yatala Labour Prison, so a lot of the prison guards came down and certainly voiced their disapproval. These were guards who worked here in Adelaide at Yatala and they were not amused either, that they had not been informed of what was going on and they were not happy about moving. I am sure, over time, we could have found plenty of prison guards in the area, but it just showed the angst.

What happened in the longer term was that tens of millions in compensation had to be paid out to bidders because the whole show fell over. It was a complete disaster. I note that, in more recent times, many millions of dollars have been spent on upgrades across the state and part of that is the internal upgrades to Mobilong. There have been upgrades right across facilities, whether they be at Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta, and probably Cadell—I am not so sure about Cadell, but I am sure there have been upgrades there.

There may have been—and I say 'may have been'—the opportunity, if it was done properly, to build these facilities out at Mobilong but it would have taken a far better discussion with my community, my constituents, on this proposal because a women's prison would have been built there as well as the so-called Yatala Labour Prison replacement.

It did create a lot of reaction and a lot of angst, and it certainly shows you how not to make a policy announcement and think it is not going to come back to bite you just because it is not in a seat held by your party. I think that is a good lesson for people on how things should be managed.

As I explained, Mobilong does provide a lot of work opportunities and a lot of people gained good employment there. I know the perennial candidate for Labor, Mat O'Brien, works there and it does provide that surety of employment for a lot of people in the Murray Bridge community. I must say that when I have been there for functions—I have not been there for a while—I always try to make time to talk to the lads in green, the prisoners, and just have general conversations about life. I think they take on board that someone in our position takes the time to talk to them. I commend the bill. It will make our prisons safer and more secure into the future.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (17:24): I rise to make a contribution to the Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill 2020. I indicate that I am the lead speaker, perhaps the only speaker, for the opposition. From the outset, I want to make it clear, as I have already indicated to the minister, that we will not be delaying this bill unnecessarily. We will be supporting it.

My view and the view of the opposition is that it contains some eminently sensible measures that will make our prisons safer and, hopefully as importantly, work towards reducing recidivism over time. The reason we will support it is largely because most of the measures have already been debated in this place several times. I will go over some of the history behind this bill. I will not start with the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991, although I will reflect a little on that body of work later when I talk about some amendments that I have brought to this place.

In August 2016, it is fair to say there was a shift in the emphasis of our corrections policy as the former Labor government. A strategic policy panel was announced by the then minister to reduce reoffending 10 per cent by 2020. This aspiration has lasted into this government and I am pleased to see that. It remains to be seen how well that will pan out. The strategic policy panel was charged with investigating best practice and strategies that would reduce rates of reoffending and promote rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes, which is very worthy, and this bill is the penultimate expression of that aspiration.

There were 36 recommendations and six strategies coming out of that policy panel. All up, nearly $80 million—no small amount of money—was dedicated to some of the measures to be implemented, but a key pillar of course was legislative change: an amendment of the Correctional Services Act. These amendments, which were flagged and recommended by this panel, would 'support a reduction in reoffending through a greater emphasis on individual case management, access to rehabilitation and vocational training for people on remand, and enhancements to prison security'.

We go forward then to 2017. The then minister, the member for Kaurna, introduced the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017. This bill, a fairly comprehensive body of work, addressed the recommendations of the strategic policy panel. Independent of that, it also contained some measures to allow for drug testing of staff and prison visitors in an attempt to reduce drug use and drug trafficking within our prison system.

Of course, then there was an election. That bill was lost for whatever reason due to prorogation and then the now Minister for Correctional Services introduced in 2018 a bill by the same name with a different year, the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018. This was for good reason—and I do not criticise the minister for this—touted in the media as being about honouring commitments relating to serious and organised crime, alcohol and drug testing, and alcohol and drugs in the prison system. That is all fine, but a lot of it was largely lifted (and again this is no criticism) from the 2017 bill.

But, importantly, nothing in that 2018 bill, unlike the 2017 bill, addressed recidivism—addressed reducing reoffending. That was the overarching aim of the strategic policy panel in 2016. That was what all the recommendations were aimed at and that whole body of work was not reproduced in the 2018 bill. Despite the lip-service we have seen paid to bipartisanship around the principle of 10by20—reducing recidivism rates by 10 per cent by 2020—we have seen no real action up until this point.

As you may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is in fact 2020 now. It is fair to say that we have seen a trend downwards in recidivism rates as they are measured. We will know in December 2022 or January 2022 (the minister might correct me on that) when the final review of government services figures comes out whether we have been successful in reducing the recidivism rate by 10 per cent by this year. It seems unlikely.

It seems to me that, if your aim is to reduce reoffending by a significant amount by the year 2020, you would want to put some measures in place before 2020 in order to make that happen. As I said, there has been a trend downwards, so some of those other measures implemented non-legislatively have obviously had some impact, but it still begs the question, and indeed it is my only overarching criticism of this bill and of this minister today: why has it taken so long to get these measures in? It is not as though the work had not already been done.

There are some minor changes and there are some new parts to this bill, but so much of this work, particularly the work aimed at reducing reoffending, was already there in the member for Kaurna's bill, the then minister's bill, in 2017. When the 2018 bill was introduced, I took it upon myself to go back to the 2017 bill and introduce some amendments based on that bill, retaining its principles, to the 2018 bill. These were preventing automatic parole for drug traffickers, protecting victims from mail contact from prisoners and preventing contact with co-offenders and establishing buffer zones around prisons, where drug offences are essentially amplified.

I will go into more detail about those measures because I notice they have been included this time around. They were opposed by the government for whatever reason in 2018, but those measures now have reappeared in exactly the same form, as far as I can see, in this bill today. There are measures here that were in the 2017 bill, which was lost. They were brought into this house in 2018 by the opposition, but they were opposed by the government. Now they reappear and we are in the process of voting on them today.

Again, those measures include limiting prisoners' use of mail in certain circumstances for the obvious reason that a prisoner should be prevented from contacting victims, alleged victims or indeed any person associated with their offending. The bill now does prevent automatic parole for offences of dealing or trafficking drugs. This is obviously a good thing.

Currently, prisoners who are sentenced to less than five years' imprisonment for offences of dealing or trafficking drugs are eligible for automatic parole. I think this is a good reform. I thought it was a good reform in 2017. I clearly thought it was a good reform in 2018 when I suggested it, and I think it is a good reform today. The bill also introduces buffer zones for the purposes of possession of drugs, which essentially increases penalties within a zone around a prison.

The government has now completed the work of the strategic policy panel, the 2017 bill, the 2018 bill and the amendments therein. This is the final culmination of that work. It need not have taken so long but, as I said, it is a good bill. I have some amendments that I will get to soon. The opposition will not be delaying it or opposing it in any way. We will certainly have some questions in committee. As always, the caveat is that we reserve our right between the houses to reassess those things, but we certainly will not be delaying it in this house. As I said, it is largely work that was done in 2016-17 by the previous government.

So we get to the current bill. This has already been laid out fairly well by the member for Hammond today, in fact, and by the minister previously. The member for Hammond did a good job in laying out what this bill does. First of all, it introduces an objects and principles section to the act, a section that is designed and intended to guide the application of the act so that it becomes more than just a simple management tool of a system and so that decisions made within the system fit within a certain range of guidelines. Again, it is an excellent idea, an excellent measure, and we support all of it.

Obviously, community safety is the primary objective. I note that the previous shadow minister in the 2017 debate was confused by the term 'community safety' and there was quite a substantial debate about the meaning of the words 'community safety', but I think we will avoid that today. I think we are all on the same page on what community safety means and that it should be the main priority of any corrections act.

It also compels the CE and the department to provide safe and secure management of prisoners. This should be a given anyway, as indeed most of these objects and principles should be, but it is important sometimes to legislate and codify these things so that there is a reference point when things go wrong. It has regard to the rights of victims of crime, which is a very important principle and one that that again you would hope the corrections system takes into account at all times. This compels the system to do so.

Another focus is on supporting the reintegration of prisoners in the community as part of their rehabilitation. This grew out of the strategic policy panel, the overarching mission of which was to reduce reoffending, reduce recidivism, by 10 per cent by the year 2020. Of course, there are measures about the management of officers and employees, which the member for Hammond covered quite succinctly. I have some questions about that in committee, but essentially we will not be opposing that.

While we are still on the objects and principles section, I have flagged several amendments, indeed additions to the objects and principles section. This harks back to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody from 1991. There are some 400 recommendations, I think. I could be wrong about that, but there are certainly hundreds of recommendations, many of which have been implemented by various jurisdictions, not just in Corrections but in police, attorney-generals' departments and across government generally.

The amendments I am bringing in today give expression to one particular recommendation of the royal commission. I have spoken to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement about this in recent days. They are very supportive of it, and they think that a measure based on this recommendation would very much improve the rehabilitation prospects of Aboriginal offenders and reduce recidivism. Recommendation 168 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody from 1991 states:

That Corrective Services effect the placement and transfer of Aboriginal prisoners according to the principle that, where possible, an Aboriginal prisoner should be placed in an institution as close as possible to the place of residence of his or her family. Where an Aboriginal prisoner is subject to a transfer to an institution further away from his or her family the prisoner should be given the right to appeal that decision.

I think that is a very important principle. I am not sure why it has not been addressed by Corrections in the past. I am not sure why it was not addressed in the 2017 bill or in this bill. As well as introducing my amendment, I will be interrogating that a little bit in the committee stage. Out of that grow my amendments. I will try to be brief. I wish to insert in the objects and principles a new principle, and that is to recognise the particular importance of family and community involvement and participation in the rehabilitation of prisoners, parolees and probationers who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons by ensuring so far as is reasonably practicable that:

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons are placed in a correctional institution as close as possible to the place of residence of their family.

2. An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person and their family are entitled to seek a review of a decision to transfer the person from one correctional institution to another further away from their family.

3. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are adequately consulted in relation to any community service that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons are required to perform to ensure that the community service is regarded as having value to the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community.

The royal commission believed, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement believe and I believe that a measure like this, as a guiding principle in the way that we treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners, will have a positive effect on recidivism rates over time. Of course, we cannot know that, but I think that all the evidence is there that there is a particular importance placed upon family and community involvement that is believed by all reasonable commentators to be a significant factor in the rehabilitation of Aboriginal prisoners.

There is another amendment related to that, which allows for a review of a transfer of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons, which is also outlined in recommendation 168 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; that is, if the CE orders the transfer of a prisoner who is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person from one correctional institution to another, the CE must provide a copy of that order, the prisoner must not be transferred until after the period within which an application for review of the order under this section may be made, and then it outlines how a review may be made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Those amendments will come up later, I am advised, and I had a fruitful and frank discussion with the minister's advisers earlier today. I am advised there is a government amendment to the first of my amendments and I am advised that the government will not be supporting the second of those amendments. We probably will not get to the committee stage today, but I look forward to that particular debate and seeing whether or not the amendments that the government is bringing to my first amendment maintain its spirit and maybe even strengthen it in terms of its goal of reducing Aboriginal reoffending.

The bill goes on to place emphasis on end-to-end case management as part of prisoner offender assessment. Of course, this is very important. This was the whole crux of the 2017 bill, which unfortunately did not go through this place. There are other measures that are perfectly reasonable, such as remuneration of the Parole Board, to be determined by the remuneration tribunal, as occurs with other government boards. There are other streamlining of parole processes. I was tempted to insert some other amendments along the lines of some of the things I have been thinking about the way the Parole Board might operate more efficiently, but I will save that for another day.

Of course, the visiting inspector scheme was foreshadowed in the 2017 legislation. There have been some slight changes around the names and the terms we use to describe such people, but we are told by the minister that this means that South Australian prisoners will now be in compliance with the inspection requirements under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

There has been some speculation in the media—and I have not tested this and I intend to test it during the committee stage—about whether there are other demands placed upon corrections systems by OPCAT. There have been some suggestions by the media—I do not know either way and I will be interrogating that during the committee stage—about whether we are indeed, following the passage of this bill, compliant with all of our obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, but that remains to be seen.

Of course, I support the provisions around drones and all the provisions designed to limit the inflow of drugs into our prisons. I do note that, since the Remand Centre's privatisation, there have been some reports that drugs are flowing quite freely from the Remand Centre into the rest of the prison system. This is yet to be tested. Several good reasons have been put to me as to why this may be so, but of course we need to recognise that the Remand Centre is the gateway to the rest of our prison system. If we cannot ensure that the Remand Centre is adequately staffed and resourced to tackle drugs and other contraband, we are going to face a losing battle in protecting the rest of our prison system from those things.

The last thing I will say about the bill is that it introduces some new criminal offences which were not foreshadowed in the 2017 bill and which I will be asking some questions about. On the face of it, they seem perfectly reasonable. They are offences around the unlawful assembly of prisoners and around riot provisions within a prison. I must confess that I thought the offences that we will be discussing, and the need for these provisions, already existed in other acts, but I am prepared to be convinced that they are not. I think they are probably very good measures in terms of keeping prisoners safe from each other and keeping the employees of the prison system safe.

With those few words, I look forward to the committee stage. I look forward to debating the merits of the amendments. I think they are important amendments. They are certainly amendments that reflect the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and are supported by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, among others, so I look forward to that debate. I commend the bill to the house. It has been a long time coming, but these are important measures. I hope, when the 2022 figures come out from the Review of Government Services, that we have indeed made a significant dent in the recidivism rates of South Australian offenders.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:47): It has been a long time since we have spoken about Corrections twice in one day. I would like to declare up-front that I am the member for Florey, which is the home—it is a strange word to use, but it is a euphemism—for the Yatala prison and the Women's Prison. I must also declare I have been to just about every prison in this state except for Port Lincoln, which is a place I should try to go to, and then I will have a full house, so to speak. I have always had a concern for the criminal justice system and those caught up in the custodial area.

I thank the minister and his department for their work on this very important bill. To all the staff who work in Corrections: it is an almost thankless job. However, as I go to visit these prisons incognito, as the ultimate mystery visitor, I do have some suggestions to make at some stage. One of these will relate to the long overdue automated prisoner booking system. October is far too long to wait for that to happen in this day and age, particularly post-COVID when everyone is doing everything online. I really think we need to zip along a bit faster there because, as we know, family support for prisoners and people in custody is a very vital component of everything, notwithstanding the obvious problems with how drugs come into the system and other things.

It is very good to see this bill before the house. Almost every person has the potential to be a productive member of society; some just take a little longer to realise how they are going to be productive in society. Peggy Fulton Hora said during her time here as a thinker in residence—I think was her actual role—that there are always going to be a small number of people we are never going to be able to do much with.

So it is our role to find all the other people we can assist in the system as much as we can. I have seen some very strange things in prisons, and I would not really like to be involved in serving a custodial sentence at all. I do not know how I would cope, but obviously people have to come out after a prison sentence and be productive members of society, and it is our job to make sure that is exactly what they do.

I commend any measures we have to assist prisoners in rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism and reoffending. I have realised firsthand, having tried to support someone for more than 14 years, how difficult it is to keep people on the straight and narrow. It would be fair to say my observation relates to the fact that most of the people in the prison system lack formal education and the ability to read and write and be numerate. It is very hard to get a job if you cannot do that.

It has been a term-long interest of mine to find ways we can improve on delivering education, not only in the prison system but also in the Remand Centre which, as the member for Elizabeth said, is now privatised. During my time of intense interest and visiting the Remand Centre, my friend was one of only two who completed an educational course of any variety there. I just do not see how we can keep people on remand—I am not sure what the current length of remand is; it was pretty long the last time I looked—you cannot have people sitting on remand doing nothing, so that is exactly what I am getting to. I cannot wait to see what you are going to be up to with education.

I will have some questions, of course, on educational opportunities, some matters relating to the Parole Board and, again, as I have indicated, matters relating to the automated prisoner visit system. It is for everyone who is in prison, including the juvenile corrections system, the Aboriginal people, both men and women. I think some of the worst things I have seen have related to Aboriginal women in prison on a couple of sites. I cannot believe what I have seen in this day and age.

Of course, anyone who is involved in corrections knows we have to try to make sure everybody has an opportunity to have a fulfilling life outside prison. Most of them have families and people who love them and care for them, so it is up to us to give them every opportunity to do the right thing because it is very easy when you get out of prison not to be able to make a go of it. So anything you can do in this bill, minister, I am sure will be fabulous. I look forward to listening to the debate and taking part in the committee.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McBride.

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