HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2020.)

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (15:38): It is a pleasure to rise on the Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill 2020 on behalf of the people of Stuart. This is actually very important, and I would like to give the Minister for Correctional Services great credit for the work he has done here, including the very broad and deep consultation he has done on this bill as well. I think it is also important to point out that this bill did originate back in 2017 under the previous government. I think it is only fair to mention that, given the very kind comments made by the shadow minister yesterday with regard to the current minister.

Much has been canvassed about the bill. The member for Hammond I know has gone into great detail on it, and certainly the minister's second reading explanation was very thorough, so let me just be sure that anybody who takes an interest in my speech understands that what this is really about is several different areas: disclosure of information relating to criminal history; remotely piloted aircraft, that is, drones, and that is very much about security and also the delivery of contraband; buffer zones; official visitors; the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner; restraints that are or are not to be used on prisoners in certain circumstances; and management of officers/employees of the department.

I mentioned consultation previously. I will not name all the people the minister and the Department for Correctional Services have engaged with, but some who really stand out to me are the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, the Director of the Legal Services Commission, the Chief Executive of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the General Secretary of the Public Service Association, the head of the Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services and the Presiding Member of the Parole Board.

There are about the same number again, but those ones jump out at me as an illustration of extremely thorough consultation and with a wide range of organisations and people who I know would have a very wide range of views as well—not all of them complementary views, and that is 'complementary' with an 'e'. The minister has done a very good job in bringing all of this together in a tough situation.

Speaking of tough situations, as a local member of parliament with Port Augusta Prison in my electorate, and previously with a different boundary having had the Cadell Training Centre in my electorate, and also in fact having been a shadow minister for correctional services for a long time and having visited all the prisons back then and had very thorough discussions with all the managers and many staff back then, one of the highest priorities from my perspective is with regard to the treatment of the people who work in the prisons.

Of course, treatment of the prisoners is vitally important, that goes without saying, as are right care, the right treatment, the right nourishment, the right access to medication and the right access to training. All those things are very important, but the treatment of the people who work there is incredibly important as well. It is tough work.

I have friends who have worked in Correctional Services as prison officers for 20-plus years, and they love it. It is just right for them. They really enjoy the work. I have other friends who would never consider it, just would not do it. I even have half a dozen or so friends who, over the last probably four years when DCS was really trying to recruit and increase their staffing numbers, had a go at it thinking that it might be right for them, but it was not and so they ended up deciding to leave, and there is no shame in that. It is very difficult, very challenging work.

I find corrections, I have to say, fascinating. At one end of the spectrum it is the simplest of areas of government work: you have criminals and you take them off the streets and you keep them off the streets, but that is an extraordinarily extreme simplification of it. At the other end it is extraordinarily complex, interesting and incredibly important work as well. So I take my hat off to the people who work in these prisons.

Simultaneously, though, there is much in this bill which is about making sure that those people do the right thing. As in any workplace not everybody is perfect, and the prison system is no different from the legal system or the legal fraternity, perhaps, or the medical fraternity or the political fraternity. Members of parliament are not perfect, and that would be true of whatever workplace you wanted to look at: sportspeople or cleaners, bus drivers or accountants. It would not matter; the laws of averages apply to most things.

An enormous amount of work goes into making sure that people who enter DCS as staff members, and particularly as corrections officers, are tested and assessed and considered very deeply, but there are from time to time still difficulties. Some of those difficulties start with the staff member. Some of those difficulties, very unfortunately, are almost not of that person's making.

I remember very well, probably six or seven years ago, a prison officer was found to have been doing the wrong thing in his job. As it turned out, his son had actually got himself into a whole lot of strife. His son had been put under extreme pressure by a bikie gang, and part of that pressure then came to bear on the prison officer, who was told without any doubt whatsoever that if the prison officer did not do what the bikie gang wanted him to do, his son would suffer the consequences—a terrible situation for any parent to be in. I am not singling anybody out as good or bad or right or wrong, I am just illustrating that people can find themselves in situations they should not be for a wide range of reasons, and that is certainly one example that I came across.

This bill is about many things, as I have already said, but one of them is about trying to make sure that prison officers do the right thing. I am so pleased that Nev Kitchin, the General Secretary of the PSA, was involved in this. I have had very productive conversations with him over quite a few years up until a few years ago when I was in that role. I have also had very productive conversations with friends and acquaintances who work in the prison system in Port Augusta, in Cadell and in Adelaide, as it happens, with regard to how you try to find the right balance. This same discussion, as we know, often applies to police officers and some other people in other critical-type roles with regard to security and behaviour, including security and behaviour after hours when they are not actually at their job.

It is about finding the right balance. On the one hand, there is the view that the Department for Correctional Services has employed a person and done incredibly thorough background checking, behavioural analysis, mental and psychological testing to be sure that the person has the best chance to be cut out for this type of work, etc. and, beyond that, when they are working in the system, they should not have to be under any other personal scrutiny with regard to what they do or how they operate because it should all have been taken care of and they are working in a system which should mean that those risks are eradicated or, at the very least, significantly minimised.

At the other extreme, some people hold the view: 'Just search them anytime. Even away from work do drug testing and alcohol testing anytime. These people have incredibly vital roles and we must take no chances with them and go through them like a dose of salts.' Of course, as is almost always the case, the best practice is somewhere between those two extremes. I know that the Minister for Correctional Services has tried very hard to get that right. I also know that in my discussions with Nev Kitchin previously and with friends, as I mentioned, over time the profession—if I can put it that way—has more and more willingly accepted the reality that more scrutiny of them is required and is warranted.

I would go so far as to say that the people I have come across who struck me as extremely good at their work generally said, 'I would pretty much be happy for just about any scrutiny you would like. I don't want to be dragged over for a sample of something too many times and have that interfere with what I'm trying to do to get on with my work and my life, but, really, I'm open for scrutiny.' This is perhaps a bit of a harsh comment but the people I might personally have assessed as perhaps not so good at their job were typically the ones who took the other view and said, 'There's no place for that and I shouldn't have to put up with it. It's not necessary.'

I am sharing a personal value judgement there, but that is not really the point. The point I am trying to make is that in all these discussions, over a very long time, the weight of opinion has shifted in the minds of the people who do the work towards, 'Let's be more open, let's be more transparent, let's open ourselves up to scrutiny.' I am not suggesting the full, intense, completely over-the-top type of scrutiny that I used as the extreme example before.

In that vein, it is important to be sure that the people we trust to do one of the toughest jobs that you could ever imagine—please do not for a second think that being a prison officer is a cushy job and that you just sort of turn up, you walk up and down the halls on the other side of the bars from the criminals and have no stress in your life, as is sometimes portrayed in old movies. In my experience, that is a long way from the reality. It is a tough and stressful job, mentally and occasionally physically. Overwhelmingly, prison officers throughout South Australia and no doubt other places are trying to do the very best they can.

I am very aware of how difficult it is to find the right landing in that area with regard to this bill. I am very pleased that the minister has done such a thorough job in determining where he is going to land. I am very pleased that the shadow minister in his speech yesterday said that he was very comfortable with this. Just on the off chance that he did not hear it earlier on, I am very pleased that this is a bill that was essentially initiated under the previous government and is now being implemented and delivered under the current government. In our way of democracy, that is probably a pretty good way to get things done and get both sides of politics on board for a very good result.

This is a good bill. It is imperfect, because it is just not possible to get everything 100 per cent right—I know that from my own area of work—but this is a really positive, good step forward. I know it will be good for people who work in the corrections system. I know it will be good for the general public at large, who are the primary beneficiaries of the corrections system. I am also confident that it will be good for prisoners, understanding that some prisoners might not think that much about being in prison is good, but I am sure that the work of the Department for Correctional Services and this bill, when it is implemented, will at least improve things for prisoners.

I support the bill. I am very grateful for the work that prison officers and other corrections staff, whether they be in Community Corrections—it is important to point out that there are two or three times as many people being managed through the community corrections part of the Department for Correctional Services than there are actually in prison. I am very grateful for the work that prison officers, other staff in prisons and the community corrections component staff and officers do.

Interestingly, Port Augusta Prison is now the largest employer in Port Augusta. It used to be the Port Augusta power station before it was closed a few years ago. Port Augusta Prison has also been expanded. That work is ongoing and there is still a great deal of construction happening there. When that is completed, Port Augusta Prison will be the largest prison in South Australia and all the people who work there, from the general manager all the way through to the most recent arrival in the office outside of the prison walls, are to be appreciated for the work that they do—the very important, very difficult, very complex work that they do on behalf of our whole state.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (15:54): I, too, rise to make a contribution to the Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill. Just listening to the Minister for Energy and Mining, the member for Stuart, he obviously has a very keen interest in Corrections, being a previous shadow minister. It really does open up a conversation about the bill improving the corrections system.

As the member said, the minister for corrections has worked well with the opposition spokesperson for Corrections, because, as we say, this will be a good outcome; it will be an improvement to the bill and it will be an improvement to Corrections. As the member for Stuart rightfully said, for a corrections officer, the corrections system is a tough space. It is always evolving and it is always having to be improved. Corrections officers have a very tough job and they are often supported by good staff and a level of culture. We know those officers in many instances support one another so they can continue with their role as a protective officer.

My electorate of Chaffey is home to the Cadell Training Centre, a minimum security prison located just outside Cadell, about 180 kilometres north-east of Adelaide and 10 kilometres outside Morgan. It is a critical facility in our state's prison infrastructure, as it is a low-security prison farm, accommodating low-security male prisoners.

I have visited Cadell Training Centre on a number of occasions. There is always a sense of family in the office as people have been there for an extended period of time. It is also supported by the local community that primarily has part of the management of the centre. The Cadell Training Centre has been there since 1960 as a training facility for prisoners to learn vocational skills, which may not be available within other prisons and it is quite an impressive facility.

Having previously been a member of the Public Works Committee, I travelled to all the state's prisons and looked at the different aspects of high, medium and low security prisons. Visiting Port Lincoln Prison gave me an understanding that prisons are not just about concrete walls and iron bars: they are also about rehabilitation and providing a level of training for those who have offended and are looking to rehabilitate and come out on the other side with a level of skill. What I have seen at all the corrections centres is that element to be able to do that.

Cadell Training Centre's major focus is obviously on rehabilitation, but also preparing prisoners to take their place back in the community upon release. The 210 male cell block cottage-style accommodation, as it is fondly known, runs a really successful community works program, which utilises prisoner labour by supporting many of the not-for-profit projects in the local community. One of the shining examples of partnerships with inmates from the facility is that they can become members of the local fire service, working alongside members of the community to help deal with any disaster or natural event. As well, the Cadell Country Fire Service is staffed by custodial staff, members of the public, and, as I just stated, the prisoners.

Cadell Training Centre not only provides great services to the local township but it also provides services to the wider community. Obviously, there is a horticultural sector there. There are chook houses and also a small dairy that give the opportunity for those prisoners to be upskilled or skilled in some way, shape or form so that once they have potentially been rehabilitated they come out with a level of skill, particularly in the primary sector.

Some of the other great services provided there are for Meals on Wheels preparation, and it provides an outstanding service. Volunteers go into Cadell to pick up the food packages and distribute them far and wide. We know that Cadell is a small hub to that Riverland West area, with Cadell, Morgan and Waikerie and, to a lesser degree, some of those more outlying properties that Meals on Wheels provides support to. The program also provides prisoners with a sense of responsibility and a sense of community, and that has very much been evident over its entirety.

As I said, inmates can gain certificates in horticulture, dairy and commercial cookery while they are there, as well as take part in programs that give them the opportunity to realise the sins they have committed so they can then get on with life and come back into society a better person. Rehabilitation is a hugely important part of the justice system, and these types of farm projects or education programs are quite rewarding and provide an opportunity for people to appreciate not only the work that the prisoners do but the staff who facilitate and supervise these programs.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate and thank corrections staff and corrections officers, who do a great job as part of a very small community at Cadell. They protect the public, and it is important that management will be a part of these reforms, while also ensuring that our inmates are provided with a secure, safe and humane environment while they are there. The training centre at Cadell is a real landmark along the river corridor. Some people would say it is more of a holiday camp than a corrections centre.

What I would say is that they are doing an outstanding job. They are rehabilitating, and what better way to do it than out in the primary sector in the great aspect of what the Riverland climate and its hospitality offer. I give the bill my full support and I congratulate the minister and the shadow spokesperson on coming together and working through this so that it is an improvement to the corrections system and an improvement to the working relationship here in this parliament.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:03): I rise to make a contribution to the Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill 2020. Of course, it is creating quite a bit of interest. It is a significant bill, and it has been arrived at after much discussion, much consultation and much agreement across the chamber. I know that the shadow minister has an amendment or two he wishes to bring to committee, but essentially there is support from both sides.

This particular bill is closely based on the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017, which was introduced by the former government in October of that year but not assented to due to parliament's prorogation for the 2018 election. It is important to recognise the work that has gone into this particular bill. I have a special interest in this bill, given that on the outskirts of Port Lincoln is one of the state's prisons.

Not too many years ago, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas was the minister responsible for prisons at that time and he visited Port Lincoln Prison. It must have been in 2016 because we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the building of that prison in 1966. It is one of a number of times that I have had the opportunity to visit the prison in Port Lincoln. It is a bit daunting the first time you go into a prison because it is an environment like no other. Port Lincoln is a medium and low-security prison with 178 male inmates, and not too long ago it had an increase in the occupancy rate with the addition of some extra accommodation.

Another interesting thing about the Port Lincoln gaol is that it sits within about 200 hectares (or 500 acres) of farming country on the outskirts of Port Lincoln, just over Winter Hill. It is not great country, but it does have good rainfall. The prison population over the last 50 years has licked the property into shape, and it now grows annually crops of barley and canola, and I assume wheat, although I am not sure about that, as it is more barley country. They certainly run some livestock, including cattle, and there is an extensive garden within the grounds of the prison. I know much of the produce from that garden not only supplies the kitchen and the servery at the prison itself but also goes to shops and outlets in Port Lincoln.

Anther significant industry that occurs there is the manufacture of oyster baskets and, as everyone knows, aquaculture is a significant industry around the coastline of Eyre Peninsula. More than 90 per cent of the state's oysters are grown around that coastline, and the oyster baskets manufactured by the prisoners in Port Lincoln Prison find their way to many of the oyster farms around Eyre Peninsula. All in all, it makes a significant contribution to the broader community, which is exactly what we want from our prisons and our prisoner population.

I will make special mention of Grant Shepperd, who is the farm manager and whom I have known for a long time. His background is in agriculture and he supervises and oversees the operation of the farm. His knowledge and understanding of the property, and the requirements of agriculture and growing crops with good rainfall but harsh soil, are not to be sneezed at.

Port Lincoln Prison is a significant building that dominates the entrance of the western approach to Port Lincoln; there is no doubt that, and there is no way you would ever miss the building. I recall being a young boy when it was first built and my grandparents retired to Port Lincoln from their farm. My grandfather was often described as 'having more front than John Martins'. That is a very South Australian term, isn't it? I do not think you could use it anywhere else. He was not at all intimidated by the fact that there was a prison there, and he would often drive the Valiant, with us kids in the back, up to the prison gates and around it. We were petrified, of course, but my grandfather had no qualms about doing that. My memory of Port Lincoln Prison goes back a long way.

The most recent time I visited Port Lincoln Prison was when both my wife and I and some other, dare I say it, dignitaries from the town, including the mayor and others, were invited to dinner in the dining room there. The prison had offered some TAFE courses and TAFE certificates were achievable in catering. That night, we were the guests of some prisoners who prepared our meal, served us and undertook conversations. I must say that it was a thoroughly enjoyable evening: the food was brilliant and the service was fantastic. Those prisoners, men in this case, will go on to achieve their TAFE certificate in catering. I think it was catering, but I stand to be corrected. That was my most recent opportunity to visit that prison.

Going back to the bill itself, it will address the priorities of our government, including the introduction of provisions to support the Better Prisons Program, and strengthen the safety and security of our correctional system. There are some highlights of this bill. The first I want to talk about is the disclosure of information relating to criminal history. Amendments have been made to the criminal intelligence provisions within the bill, which now allows the chief executive to obtain certain information from the Commissioner of Police. DCS have consulted with SAPOL to ensure these provisions were operationally feasible for both agencies. As I mentioned earlier, there was extensive consultation in relation to the drafting of the bill.

Drones have been talked about by previous members, or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA); most of us know them as drones. The use of RPAs being flown over prisons is a security issue for all correctional jurisdictions, even more so now with the remotely piloted aircraft becoming increasingly advanced in technology and more accessible to the general public. The 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.

Drones can also be seized if found in a prison environment. Buffer zones will be established, and the bill will introduce those prison buffer zones, for the purpose of possession of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The intention is for these zones to be similar to school zones in many ways, in which the sale, supply or administration of a controlled drug is prohibited.

The official visitors scheme will establish a group of independent appropriately skilled visitors who meet OPCAT requirements, otherwise known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, while also meeting the contemporary needs of a prisoner population, including specialists in mental health and wellbeing and Aboriginal representatives.

The Parole Administrative Review Commissioner (PARC) also provides for an amendment. 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.

The bill also covers off on restraints to be used on prisoners in certain circumstances, obviously. 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. The bill provides for the circumstances in which restraints may be applied to prisoners, and this inclusion allows DCS to use restraints in some circumstances without constituting a use of force. Of course, this will allow restraints to be used during the transportation 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 internal movement.

It is a really important bill. I am pleased to be able to speak to it and I look forward to it going into committee. In closing, I will acknowledge, as have other members, the work of those who work within Correctional Services. As the member for Stuart said, I know quite a number of the prison officers, for want of a better term, who work within Port Lincoln Prison, and they do a wonderful job. They take their job very responsibly and, almost to a person, they enjoy their work and are pleased to have the opportunity to undertake that as a career. I admire their dedication also.

I also have a friend who works within the education area of Port Lincoln Prison. A lot of that is about literacy and numeracy. I think the member for Florey mentioned the high percentage of prisoners who have a low level of numeracy and literacy competency. That makes it all the more difficult for prisoners, once they are released, to integrate back into normal life if those skills are not there. Once again, my friend is very dedicated to the task. She enjoys her work and has undertaken to build skills within the Port Lincoln Prison population around literacy and numeracy. I very much congratulate her on that effort and admire her work.

In summary, Port Lincoln Prison is a significant building. It is a significant employer within the Port Lincoln community. It engages a good number of prison workers and others associated with the farm, the garden and the oyster fabrication industry. It is not just prisoners, of course, as they have to be overseen. The produce from that farm makes a significant contribution to the broader community of Port Lincoln. Well done to all those involved in that institution. I commend the bill.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:15): I rise with some brief words to commend this bill and more particularly, as I understand it, to commend the minister and shadow spokesperson for their collaborative work to bring this bill to the house, setting out as it does a range of measures to reform Correctional Services in the state.

Those who have contributed already to the debate have referred to the range of measures that will be applied. I am pleased to see in particular that there will be provisions to respond to technology—for example, the prevalence of drone technology will be addressed in the bill—as well as further measures to establish meaningful buffer zones, with a view to ensuring the prevention of the possession of drugs in prisons and, to that end, applying some strict measures in relation to the unauthorised use of mobile telephones in correctional institutions. Those are among the range of measures.

I also note the amendments to the official visitors arrangement that are subject to part 3, division 2. They are in connection with the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the associated Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and I am pleased to see that that official visitors scheme will apply subject to provisions that are set out in the bill.

The part that I wish to address briefly and more specifically is that aspect of the bill that goes to the reform of the offenders who will now be the subject of prescribed class of prisoners who are serving sentences in connection with the offence of murder. Presently, the circumstances under which a decision of the Parole Board in relation to the release of a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment being subject to a review by the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner is specific and somewhat limited with respect to those serving a sentence for murder.

The amendments will expand that class of prisoner to include a range of offences that are in connection with the principal offence of murder. What that would do in a very practical way is introduce that further level of review in relation to parole decisions, which it is anticipated will provide that greater level of protection and perhaps comfort to victims and also to the community in relation to the determination of questions of parole of that prescribed class of prisoners.

With reference to the Parole Board, I take the opportunity to observe that the Parole Board has been in existence since 1969. In that 50-year history, its chair, the present chair, Frances Nelson QC, has been in that role since 1983. So a really substantial majority of the life of the Parole Board itself has been presided over by Frances Nelson who, apart from being the very long-serving chair of the Parole Board, is one of the state's most senior Queen's Counsels and very much a respected senior member of the bar. She has discharged that public role over a period of many decades and it is well to recognise that extended period of service.

I also recognise the important role that the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner undertakes in the context of this process. The commissioner is necessarily a retired judge of a superior court and serves in that capacity as reviewer of that particular class of decisions of the Parole Board. Those are important public functions in the context of corrections more broadly and I do recognise and acknowledge all those who serve on the Parole Board, particularly the chair and also the commissioner. I am pleased to note that among the wideranging consultation that has occurred in the course of preparing the bill over the period that it has been in the works, consultation has, I understand, included a consultation with the Presiding Member of the Parole Board.

It might be well further to observe that the Parole Board, and its functions, actually provides a very important bridge from our correctional facilities back into the community for prisoners. I understand and want to recognise the work of organisations with which the Parole Board continues to work closely, including the Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of South Australia (OARS), the Aboriginal Prisoners and Offenders Support Services (APOSS), the Exceptional Needs Unit and the Forensic Mental Health Service, as well as South Australia Police.

I understand that the board also receives assistance from non-government agencies, including Anglicare, the Salvation Army and Second Chances SA, which are non-government organisations. Those organisations assist, in certain cases, by helping to provide accommodation for offenders, with some level of supervision and support associated, and, in other respects, by helping to support the families of those offenders to ensure that, as far as possible, that return into the community is with good prospects of a long-term return to making a contribution in the community and, for those who have served a sentence, getting back to living a constructive life outside the correctional facility.

With those brief words, focusing as I have on those amendments in relation to the review, I once again commend the bill and commend the work of the minister and shadow spokesman working together to bring it to the house.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:25): I would like to thank all the members for their contributions to this debate. I take this time to address some of the matters raised by members during the second reading, noting that we will flesh them out further during committee.

With regard to comments made by the member for Elizabeth on recidivism, I have received advice from the Department for Correctional Services that the final 10by20 report will be released in the first quarter of 2023 as detailed in the previous State Government Response and Action Plan. Offenders are tracked for a two-year period and therefore, as the member for Elizabeth has pointed out, the reoffending rate for prisoners released in the financial year 2019-20 will not yet be known until the latter part of 2022 and documented in the final report in 2023.

The 2020 progress report, which details highlights of key 10by20 initiatives, will be publicly released shortly. This progress report will provide the reoffending rate for prisoners released in the year 2016-17. The 2020 progress report outlines the progress that DCS has made to date with the 10by20 strategy, in particular key milestones that were achieved throughout 2019 and 2020 to date and efforts towards future progress.

The government provided bipartisan support to the 10by20 strategy and all associated recommendations and anticipates positive results by 2023. With the management of DCS officers and employees, I look forward to the questions to be raised in committee; however, I can provide the following advice. Whilst these powers mirror some of those that sit with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, the amendments have been proposed to allow the chief executive to take immediate action in relation to investigations and reviews of an operational nature related to the department's business related to the operations of the Correctional Services Act.

The provisions for the additional powers for the chief executive are aligned with those found in other legislation. With 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 right as a public servant. The bill does, however, provide protection against staff and 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 a correctional institution.

Regarding demands placed upon correctional systems by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), I am told that significant amendments have been made to provisions relating to inspections 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 DCS 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 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, 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 that meet OPCAT requirements while also meeting the contemporary needs of a prison population, including specialists in mental health and wellbeing and Aboriginal representatives. I now turn to comments made regarding new criminal offences.

There are currently no provisions in the existing act with regard to prisoners involved in riot or mutiny. Prisoners involved in such incidents can only be dealt with via a breach of the regulations. In response to the member for Elizabeth's questions in regard to other legislation that may provide for these offences, I am advised that section 83B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act does reference riot; however, that offence notes that there must be 12 or more individuals present. It would rest with the prosecution as to what legislation is to be used.

In addition, under current provisions of the act prisoners found in possession of drugs or other prohibited items, such as mobile phones, can only be dealt with via a breach of the regulations. The insertion of sections 49 and 49A creates new offences and ensures that prisoners can be held accountable by making such acts a criminal offence. The changes mirror provisions in other jurisdictions. They aim to reduce the amount of drugs in prisons and improve the safety and security for prisoners, employees and the community—something this government has been very strong on since coming into office.

I thank the member for Florey for her contributions and her longstanding interest in justice and corrections and prisoner welfare. I understand the member for Florey's questions regarding the automated prisoner booking system relate to upgrades with regard to the KEX (kiosk express system) and the ability to arrange the domestic visits through that system. Whilst I consider the member's question may be unrelated to the bill, I can advise the following: KEX enables prisoners to become self-sufficient in submitting requests and obtaining information via the use of an electronic fixed device known as a 'kiosk'. The kiosks have been operational in all DCS prisons for some time now. Kiosks are biometrically enabled via high-quality fingerprint scanning and are very robust. The rollout of key functions within the KEX system has continued to take place in a staged approach.

The changes for professional visits is stage 4 of the KEX project and consists of two key deliverables: the provision of a booking system for use by DCS staff and an online booking portal, where professional visitors can register and make bookings themselves. Domestic visits is stage 5 of the KEX project and will give prisoners the ability to book their own visits using kiosks, with a pilot program to be undertaken at Port Lincoln Prison and the Adelaide Pre-release Centre. I am advised that the COVID-19 health emergency has resulted in some delay to the implementation of stage 5, which is now planned to go live in October 2020. I know that will not make the member for Florey happy, but DCS is satisfied that appropriate planning is in place for the enhancement of this system and it will be rolled out as quickly as possible.

Responding to comments made by the member for Florey regarding educational opportunities, she will be happy to know that the department's primary focus for prisoner education and training is to provide prisoners with the skills, knowledge and qualifications to gain employment upon release. Prisoners receive a full professional assessment at the beginning of their sentence to determine a full case management and learning plan. This includes understanding their numeracy, literacy and employment readiness needs, as has been pointed out by the member for Flinders—in fact you, sir, now sitting in the chair—as well as their rehabilitation program needs. This allows for the development of an individualised case management and learning plan to determine relevant units in which the offender should be enrolled to allow for the acquisition of the skills that will enable more effective engagement in a criminogenic program and engage in vocational learning.

Following the transfer of the Adelaide Remand Centre to Serco operations under this government, new service provisions now include the provision at that site of specialised courses to remandees, which is something the member for Florey also raised. These courses include life skills and community links. Should the member wish to have some further information in regard to this, I am happy to arrange an appointment with the CE of DCS. He is always happy to oblige, and we love her passion for this sector.

Further, with regard to remandees I do highlight clause 10 in this bill, amendment of section 29—Work by prisoners. Distinctions in the current act between remand prisoners and other prisoners relating to work are removed. Historically, remand prisoners have not been required to participate in employment, rehabilitation, training or assessments based on the position that they have not been found guilty of an offence in a court of law. These activities contribute to rehabilitation by maximising opportunities for prisoners to engage in a range of activities and work through which they can learn skills and prosocial behaviour.

This amendment allows remand prisoners to participate in appropriate employment programs, thereby giving them positive rehabilitation opportunities and improving their chances of prosocial reintegration when released from custody. I hope that is a satisfactory response to the member for Florey and I look forward to engaging with her more on that.

This supports recommendations made in the 10by20 strategy. With these changes, the department will now be able to further explore opportunities for remand prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programs, including substance abuse and therapeutic communities, and general programs, such as education, including numeracy, literacy and vocational training. Finally, matters raised relating to the Parole Board may be questions better asked of the Presiding Member, Ms Frances Nelson QC.

I would again like to thank all members for their contributions and I do note those of the member for Chaffey, the member for Heysen, the member for Flinders, the member for Stuart, the member for Hammond, the member for Elizabeth, whom I have mentioned, and the member for Florey. We appreciate their interest in this and look forward to progressing this through the committee posthaste.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to thank the minister for his closing remarks and also the other members who have made a contribution, particularly the member for Florey. I look forward to her contribution in this committee debate. A lot of contributions have mentioned the collegial and cooperative way in which we have approached this legislation. I should say that is true, except that it has happened over a long period of time and it has happened since 2016. Apart from the amendments I will put, my only criticism of this bill is that it has taken so long to arrive in this place.

I will press on with some questions on clause 1, since there does not seem to be a more appropriate place to put them. In his second reading summing up, the minister mentioned a progress report. Can you detail exactly when that report will be published, minister?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for the question and note a couple of aspects in his question. I am very proud to have brought this bill before the house. I note that work has been done on this before and that our government, since coming in, has very much beefed this up.

We did have the amendment bill earlier, which I think you raised in your speech as well, member for Elizabeth, but we did move that amendment bill very early to address a number of our election commitments, which were very much focused around strengthening the security in our prisons, keeping drugs out of prisons and closing down outlaw gangs and crime syndicates within prisons. I was very proud of that piece of work.

That was the initial piece of work, and we have come back now with this second body of work. As I said, it is beefed up. You make a number of points about the fact that this has been around for a while, and I do concur with your points. You had 16 years to get this work through and that did not happen, but we will fix that. We will pass this bill and we will get it through, and I thank you for your support fundamentally. As far as the date of the release of that report, that has not been set yet.

Mr ODENWALDER: Were there any measures that either the department or the chair or any other member of the Parole Board asked for that did not end up forming part of the bill? Did you reject any requests?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr ODENWALDER: Then are there any measures in the bill that either the department or the chair or any member of the Parole Board expressed any reservations about and what were those concerns?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, not to my knowledge.

The CHAIR: This is question No. 4, member for Elizabeth. I will allow you just this one.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a fairly standard question about consultation.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: As the member for Hammond famously said, I can go all day.

The CHAIR: And he nearly did. I make the comment about the short title and clause 1 that the opposition generally asks questions about consultation during questions on this clause, so I am quite accepting of that. Member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Apart from the department and the Parole Board, and I am presuming SAPOL, what other bodies or agencies were consulted?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have a comprehensive list in front of me, but you are right, of course: the department, SAPOL and the Parole Board chair as well. I know that the Law Society was engaged as well and, I am led to believe, ALRM. Certainly, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights was heavily engaged and, of course, you can see that through the body of the work but, again, the exact list I do not have in front of me. I am 99.9 per cent sure; in fact, I know I did actually personally speak on a number of occasions to ALRM as well. They were some of the key ones. If I have missed anyone else, I apologise, but I think you get the gist. I know that the PSA was also consulted and were sent a copy of the bill to make any comment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 4, after line 38 [clause 5, inserted section 3(2)]—Insert:

(fa) to recognise the particular importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community involvement 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—

(i) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons are placed in a correctional institution as close as possible to their usual place of residence; and

(ii) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is entitled to seek a review of a decision to transfer the person from 1 correctional institution to another in relation to regional transfers where the person will be 200km or further from the correctional institution they are being transferred from; and

(iii) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are adequately consulted in relation to any community service projects that are regarded as having particular value to the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community; and

Mr ODENWALDER: I move to amend the amendment as follows:

At (fa)(ii)—to delete the words 'in relation to regional transfers where the person will be 200km or further from the correctional institution they are being transferred from'

The history of this is that I first received the bill several weeks ago. I noted its similarity to the 2017 bill. Obviously, I approved and my party room approved of the objects and principles section. I was prompted to revisit the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody by recent events and I noted that there were some in the corrections area that perhaps could have been inserted. This was a good opportunity to insert those into the corrections act to give effect to some of them. This amendment in its amended form gives effect to recommendation 168 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which states:

168. 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.

That seems to be eminently sensible. I drafted some amendments to that effect. Late yesterday, I received a government amendment that was similar but, among other small changes, inserted a requirement that, in order for a review to take place into that Aboriginal person's transfer, the transfer must take place over a distance of more than 200 kilometres. I think that is unreasonable. I think that any reasonable person would think that was unreasonable and against the spirit of the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and hence I move my amendment to the government amendment.

I am happy to accept the other changes with the usual caveat that we will examine it further in between the houses because, as I said to the minister's advisers yesterday—and to be fair to them, they were frank and open with me—I have not had a chance to consult my party room in any formal way. I am happy to accept some of those small changes, but I do not want to accept—and I think this side of the house will not accept—the 200-kilometre proviso that the minister is suggesting, so I move that way and I am happy to discuss it further.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As we have outlined in the toing and froing here, I oppose the member for Elizabeth's amendment, having filed my own. I will start by saying that the government opposes the amendment in order to keep the amendment process cleaner. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that it is easier to put my own amendment forward.

Helping Aboriginal prisoners is one of the highest priorities of the Marshall government and the Department for Correctional Services, who are actively promoting and building relationships between all Australians in our communities. Aboriginal over-representation in the justice system is a major social justice issue in Australia and this government is committed to continuously reviewing and improving services available for all prisoners and offenders who enter the correctional system.

The government therefore supports enshrining within the proposed new objects and guiding principles of the act, specific provisions recognising the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the rehabilitation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders. I do, however, believe that the amendments proposed by the member opposite should be replaced with my alternative proposed amendment which focuses more on the needs of individual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders.

The DCS Aboriginal Services Unit was established as a result of the royal commission into reducing Aboriginal deaths in custody. The unit is responsible for strategic and operational advice regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners and offenders and the development of culturally appropriate services and programs. Importantly, the unit has been leading the development of a departmental Aboriginal strategic framework which is due to be launched later this year.

If DCS is going to successfully reduce the rate of Aboriginal prisoners returning to custody, those prisoners must have access to rehabilitation programs, culturally appropriate support, education and access to employment to build skills, as well as access to lower security prisons that may not be located near family or homelands. If, for example, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person's family seeks to review a decision to transfer the person further away from their family, they could potentially be preventing that person from being able to participate in programs or education that is available at certain correctional institutions. For example, bakery and metal fabrication programs are being managed from Mobilong Prison and horticulture programs at the Cadell Training Centre.

It is important that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners are able to access the same programs and opportunities as other prisoners. To have that opportunity, they may have to travel a little bit away from wherever their designated base is. The value to an offender of their rehabilitation must not be overlooked. We know how important that is, especially in aiming to achieve our 10by20 target.

It is the offender who should be at the centre of these amendments with regard to replacement. Positive engagement by individuals in the case-planning process is essential to their progression in the prison environment. The government does see the value in ensuring that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is adequately consulted in relation to any community service projects that have a particular value to the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community. As such, it is the government's preferred approach that this alternative amendment is supported by all members. Accordingly, I commend my alternative amendment to the committee.

Mr ODENWALDER: Do I get to interrogate that a little?

The CHAIR: You can, absolutely.

Mr ODENWALDER: I apologise if I missed it, minister, but I understand the bill is focused on the individual as opposed to the family. I discussed that with your advisers and I accept it, at least for the purposes of the debate in this house today. I do not feel that you addressed the need for the 200-kilometre limit adequately. I am sorry if I missed it. I need to understand why the department or why you think it is necessary to insert a provision which prevents a review into a move that is less than 200 kilometres, because I know that is a fair distance.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: My advice is that the reason for the 200 kilometres is that, whilst we have the Northfield facility, if it is any less than 200 kilometres it does not encapsulate any other facility; there is no other facility around. Mobilong, I think, fits into that 200-kilometre mark but I am not sure that any other one does. By having that 200-kilometre facility means that Mobilong can be encapsulated in that.

Mr ODENWALDER: I hope I do not misunderstand the intention of your provision then. According to my understanding if, for instance, a prisoner was transferred from Yatala to Mobilong, which is less than 200 kilometres I think, are you saying that there is no opportunity for that prisoner to review that decision?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised that is correct. What that 200 kilometres does is it encapsulates Mobilong within the metropolitan zone, if you like. So it gives that flexibility for the safety or security of the person involved so that they can be transferred there and/or attend some of the programs that might be offered at one facility as opposed to another. If there was a program that was happening at Mobilong that was beneficial to that person's rehabilitation and care within the prison system, they could go to Mobilong and flip-flop between Yatala and Mobilong because it is inside that 200 kilometres. Beyond that, Port Augusta or those other facilities would be outside the 200-kilometre range.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry, minister, I do not think that is what the provision says. As I read it, this provision says that if, for instance, someone was transferred—they can already be transferred now; that is in the act now. A prisoner can be transferred for all those reasons that you stated. What you are saying in your amendment is that if a prisoner is transferred less than 200 kilometres—for instance, from Mobilong to Yatala—they have no opportunity to review that decision. Is that not what your provision says?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, just to clarify, this is my provision overriding your provision. Again, it gets complex. But what you were asking was that any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, from what I can see here, who is transferred from one prison to another, the person and/or the family are entitled to seek a review of the decision to transfer the person from one correctional institution to any further away than their family.

Mr Odenwalder: No.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is what your provision says. I think I am reading that correctly. Your provision (ii) states:

an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person and their family are entitled to seek a review of a decision to transfer the person from 1 correctional institution to another further away from their family…

So if someone is in Adelaide—

Mr Odenwalder: You are talking about the wrong amendment. We are discussing your amendment with my amendment to your amendment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, if I can go back. I have amended yours.

Mr Odenwalder: No, you haven't. You have introduced a new amendment, minister.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, to amend what you—

Mr Odenwalder: No, we have not touched my amendment yet. We are talking about your amendment and my slight change to your amendment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I can come back. I apologise, I think we are getting confused. I want to try to clarify this, and let me know if I am.

The CHAIR: Minister, you moved an amendment to clause 5.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I did.

The CHAIR: The member for Elizabeth moved to amend the amendment. So we are actually considering the amendment to the amendment at the moment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: So we are considering the member for Elizabeth's amendment?

The CHAIR: Yes, we are considering his amendment to your amendment, not yours. Can you just read that out, minister, for the benefit of Hansard.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: 'In relation to regional transfers where the person will be 200 kilometres or further from the correctional institution they are being transferred from.' He wants to delete those words.

The CHAIR: The member for Elizabeth is looking to strike those out.

Mr Odenwalder: I am happy to accept your amendment, removing those words.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And I am saying, no, those words stay in there because that will make it back to your original amendment—

Mr Odenwalder: No, it won't.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Hang on. What we are saying is we want that to stay in there. What I am told is the reason for this is: 'in relation to regional transfers where the person will be 200 kilometres or further from their correctional institution they are being transferred from'. There is one facility in Adelaide: the Northfield facility. If someone needs to go to another facility, it will be over 200 kilometres, wherever it goes. By making it—

Mr Odenwalder: Not to Mobilong.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is right; that is why we say '200 kilometres', because that creates a 200 kilometre circumference around, if you like, Yatala.

Mr Odenwalder: I do not think you understand your own provision, sorry. I am not being difficult; I do not think he understands it.

The CHAIR: Let's come back to the Chair. The minister has moved amendment No. 1 in his name to clause 5 and it is this. This is the minister's amendment. The member for Elizabeth is looking to amend the amendment by striking out the last two lines in paragraph (fa)(ii); is that correct?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes—

The CHAIR: And that is what we are discussing right now.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think we are all clear on that now, because what you are trying to do is make my amendment like yours. I apologise. To be specific about what you are trying to strike out, this is for operational matters, and it means that someone can be transferred 200 kilometres and not have the provision.

Mr Odenwalder: And not be able to seek a review.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That's right.

Mr Odenwalder: Why?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is for operational reasons. As I was outlining before, it means that someone could be transferred from Yatala to Mobilong for operational reasons. It might be safety and security, it might be to do a program—

Mr Odenwalder: That's fine. They can do that now.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: But you are saying we strike that out. If we strike that out, that means—

The CHAIR: We have reached the point where we just seem to be having a general conversation across the chamber and I—

Mr Odenwalder: I'm sorry, I'm trying to assist the house.

The CHAIR: I would rather just rein that back in. Minister, I might ask you to take a seat and I will take any further questions on the amendment to the amendment. Member for Elizabeth, you have already had three. Are there any further questions to the member for Elizabeth's amendment to the minister's amendment? Member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: I am probably just going to confuse you all a bit further. I do not know if anyone has tried to support an offender any further than 200 kilometres away from anywhere. It is impossible. While the programs have to go with the offender, which I get, family support is vital. If the mountain cannot go to Mohammed, why can the courses not come to the correctional institution where that person is?

For instance, an Aboriginal constituent of mine was moved to Port Lincoln. It is impossible for someone in Adelaide to visit someone in Port Lincoln. I wish they could; I would be there more often, sir, because I know you are there and I could stay at your house—

The CHAIR: You would be more than welcome, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: —but in this particular case it is impossible to support an offender in Port Lincoln. I think the whole purpose of what we are talking about is that we have all recognised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders have special needs. To move them further away from their family than is absolutely necessary—I think the department has to rethink how it supplies its courses, operational matters aside.

If we are talking about an operation matter where the prisoner is in danger of being murdered by another inmate or something, surely you can segregate those prisoners and there is no need to move someone 200 kilometres away anyway. I do not understand what operational matter would require that, unless the prison was completely full and that was the only person you could move. I just do not understand the problem.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, we can come back to you. It is actually your amendment that we are discussing at the moment. If you would like to speak further to that, you can.

Mr ODENWALDER: I just want to be absolutely clear as to what we are voting on and I am happy for the minister to contradict me if I am wrong. The minister's amendment will recognise the importance of community involvement and family, etc., to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons by ensuring they are 'placed in a correctional institution as close as possible to their usual place of residence'. Excellent; that is fine. It continues:

(ii) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is entitled to seek a review of a decision to transfer the person from 1 correctional institution to another—

which is excellent, but the minister wants to say—

[only] in relation to regional transfers where the person will be 200km or further from the correctional institution they are being transferred from…

This means that if they are transferred from somewhere like Mobilong, for argument's sake, to Yatala, as they can be now under normal circumstances, that decision to move that prisoner is not reviewable, whereas a decision to move someone from Port Augusta to Yatala is reviewable. Why the distinction? I do not understand.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To be clear, it is still reviewable through the case review process. So there is a process for every prisoner where they have their case reviewed, and it can be reviewed through that, as it already is, but it does not mean that it is reviewable through the process we are outlining here.

The CHAIR: We have got to the point now where the member for Elizabeth is putting questions to the minister, and actually it should be the other way around because we are dealing with your amendment, member for Elizabeth. Are there any further questions to the member for Elizabeth? Member for Frome.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Part of the rehabilitation of an Indigenous person, including Torres Strait Islanders, is the issue of including family. I understand where the minister is coming from, but the member for Elizabeth is saying that if, for argument's sake, somebody had to be relocated from Port Augusta to Adelaide, then in actual fact the family needs to be there. If it is over 200 kilometres, then they need to be able to appeal. Mobilong to Adelaide is closer, so they can appeal that. I think the 200 kilometres is too far because a lot of the families of Indigenous people, with all due respect, will not be able to afford to relocate and be part of the rehabilitation. I would certainly support the amendment by the member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: I thank the member for Frome for his support. I just want to be clear about what this does. The government amendment says that any Aboriginal person is entitled to seek a review of the decision of transfer but only if that transfer is more than 200 kilometres. So if a prisoner is transferred from, as I keep coming back to, Mobilong to Yatala or vice versa, or perhaps even from the Adelaide Remand Centre to Yatala, or the Adelaide Remand Centre to Mobilong, that decision is not reviewable.

I have not had a good reason why one decision, a decision to transfer someone from Port Augusta to Adelaide, is reviewable. I do not have the stats in front of me, but I would imagine that is a more common occurrence. Why is the decision to transfer a prisoner from Yatala to Mobilong—whether or not the reasons are excellent in terms of rehabilitation—not reviewable but the transfer from Port Augusta to Adelaide is? That is the crux of it. I thank you for your support. It just does not make any sense.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I can make it any easier for the member for Elizabeth, I am happy to have a conversation between houses on this. I will again be supporting my motion, but I can get further clarification and have a conversation between houses if that helps progress the issue.

The committee divided on the amendment to the amendment:

Ayes 20

Noes 23

Majority 3

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Boyer, B.I.
Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. Close, S.E.
Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller)
Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
NOES
Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D.
Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Bignell, L.W.K. Basham, D.K.B.

Ms BEDFORD: I note the principles that are proposed to be inserted into the act by this clause among other things promote the rehabilitation of prisoners, recognise the importance of family and community involvement and support the reintegration of prisoners and probationers, etc. I therefore ask the minister why there is such a long delay with the fully automated booking system for visitors. It is impossible for family members to support people in prison when they have to spend upwards of an hour, two hours sometimes, to actually book a visit to the prison, and it would seem possible to adapt something like a doctor's surgery appointment calendar if we have to. This is a dreadful process and really needs to be looked at sooner rather than later.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for her question and again appreciate her passion and interest in this area. I did outline some of this in my reply speech. I understand she would like to see things moving faster. I understand we were left after years and years with the system we have. We are still with that system. We are transitioning to the new KEX system, which I gave quite a bit of detail on.

We are working through this in a staged process to make sure that we have the system enhancement as quickly as we possibly can. I know she has some personal frustration with the old system that was around for many years before I came into this role. We are doing our best. It has been delayed slightly through COVID—I did outline that—and we will continue to work on it with her and get the best system in place as quickly as possible.

Ms BEDFORD: I do appreciate the minister's work and all he does. I do understand he has inherited the system, and I do accept it would not matter who was in his shoes at the moment, the complaint would still be there. It is just not fast enough. If you spend two hours of your Friday night regularly trying to book a visit to see a prisoner, you would not be happy. More to the point then is: what is he going to do to enhance the antiquated system that he has? Is there more than one poor person on the phones taking bookings? Is that person a volunteer or paid employee, and how might he jiggle that along a bit more while we are waiting for October to come around?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I reiterate the point that it is not specifically part of this bill, but I appreciate the passion from the member for Florey. I am happy to get someone from the department to come back and talk her further through the system that we have and how that operates. We are moving towards stage 5 of the KEX project, and that will give prisoners the ability to book their own visits using the kiosks with the pilot program to be undertaken in Port Lincoln and also the Adelaide Pre-release Centre.

I am not sure if you have seen this new KEX system when you have been on one of the tours. Have you seen that system? It is a tablet on a wall where prisoners can use their fingerprint to—

Ms BEDFORD: Is it right beside the automatic hand-sanitiser machine? It is a bit like the member for Elizabeth's amendment. I do not think we are on the same page. I accept we have an antiquated and old system.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We are bringing a new one in.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, but not until October. If we have more than one person on the telephones making these appointments, is that person a volunteer, and how might we facilitate any sort of an improvement in what we have? It is a very difficult thing to be supporting a prisoner. You are the minister, you would not have experienced this, but it is a bit worse than going into Centrelink and trying to get a benefit. You are automatically judged because you are visiting a prisoner.

You may not want that to be the system, and I am sure that is no-one's intention, but it is what happens to people. It is a difficult system to negotiate. There is room for improvement is what I am getting at, and if the only thing you can do in a less aggravating sort of way is make the process move a little smoother until October it would be a very welcome thing for everybody.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I very much take your point on board and again stress the fact that there are advancements coming. I understand that you would like to see something faster. I am happy to take that on board from an operational perspective to get more detail and get back to the member.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you.

Mr ODENWALDER: On clause 5, we have been back and forth on this topic a little bit, but I do not think I have a very clear answer so far. Both sides of the house have, certainly since 2016, a stated commitment to the 10by20 principle. My question remains, then, and I wonder if the minister could give a clear answer, why the measures in this bill regarding rehabilitation and reducing reoffending were not introduced in the 2018 amendment bill.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: So you are referring now back to the bill we brought in when we first came into government? To answer that—I did make mention of this a few moments ago so I am repeating myself—we did move very quickly on a number of pieces of legislation in this house to marry in with our 100 days commitment when we came into government.

When we won government after 16 years of Labor, we had some things we had to do very quickly. We did move on those and they were very good amendments. They added safety and security to our prisons. They prevented members of organised gangs infiltrating prisons, because we knew that was what was going on inside the prisons and operations were happening that we wanted to shut down. We did that and we moved very quickly on that legislation at the time.

As you have attested yourself, in 16 years, when Labor tried to move this legislation, they did not get it done. Sometimes it can take quite a while. I appreciate that best endeavours and best efforts were put forward, but it did not get done and we have had to pick that up. We did this over two tranches. We did the first tranche to meet our 100 days commitment and we are very proud of that. Our government really did kick off exceptionally well by delivering against those commitments. We are now going back and still mopping up some of the work that Labor left behind and strengthening this bill to make it even stronger. That is the reason.

Mr ODENWALDER: I would have moved on at that point. I know that the minister will probably repeat his answer about the alleged 16 years of inaction, but the fact remains that this work, particularly around 10by20, which we all say we are taking a bipartisan approach to, started in 2016. There was a bill in 2017.

The measures in this bill before us today—notwithstanding all the other things about drugs, prisons, motorcycle gangs and all that sort of stuff, which are all good and I voted for—regarding rehabilitation and reducing reoffending were there in the 2017 bill. The measures we are seeing today are almost unchanged from 2017. Why were they not adopted in the 2018 bill rather than wait until 2020 if the work had already been done? The work was done.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I appreciate that and, if it was done, we can probably move on much quicker than you are going. I just reiterate the point that we did it in two phases. Part of 10by20 and a part of the whole—

Mr ODENWALDER: My question is: why?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; if I can finish, a part of 10by20 and a part of the corrections system is making sure that we have safety, security, and the ability to rehabilitate and get people back out into the community, make them contributors to society, get them out of the system and stop that cycle of just coming in, going out, coming in, going out—the recidivism we talk about.

When we came into government, there were a number of things to do. I have mentioned what we did straightaway around our election commitments. Again—you are right; I will repeat it—if this body of work was so important, you would have done it much faster, but you did not deliver it, you did not get it through the parliament and it was not a priority. Anyway, we are picking it up now and we are making it stronger.

When we came into government, we also had a situation where, within our prison system, we were going to have more prisons than beds, because actually improving the facilities was not invested in by the previous government. I am very proud of the fact that we put $200 million towards improving our facilities at the Northfield precinct and also at the Adelaide Remand Centre, making them all safe cells. I think there was an $8 million investment to make them safe cells to protect the people who were in the Remand Centre. Then, we invested $200 million in the Northfield precinct and that was to add more beds—270 more beds in the men's prison and another 40 beds in the Women's Prison.

When you go and look at that investment, it is not just beds and cells as we know them. These are actually rehabilitated spaces whereby people are looking and wanting to engage in programs and engage in action and activity, leading to programs like the Work Ready, Release Ready program, which actually upskills people and gets them into a space where they are ready to leave. When they do leave the system, they are skilled up and ready to go and they will be contributors to society. I am very proud of that.

There are a number of elements that had to be done along the way. They all incorporate in the biggest strategic thinking, which is 10by20, but that $200 million investment was again making up lost ground that the previous government had ignored, ignored and ignored. These facilities are far better. It is far better implementing these programs, which I have been outlining right throughout my dialogue on this bill, in an environment where people are far more engaged, they are on board with the programs and they will have better outcomes at the end. That all leads to that 10by20 strategy that we are striving for.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr ODENWALDER: Despite the excellent briefing from the department—and I do not mean that facetiously at all; I think it was very fulsome from the CE—I wonder whether the minister could explain these new provisions around criminal intelligence. In layman's terms, does it mean that any information supplied to corrections about a visitor or an employee by way of criminal intelligence from the Commissioner of Police is not required to be identified anywhere as such? Is that what it is saying?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Could you just rephrase? What is the question?

Mr ODENWALDER: I have just been advised that fulsome does not mean a good thing. I need to check my dictionary. In any case, I mean no disrespect to the CE. He is a good man.

Ms Bedford: It means he's big, doesn't it?

Mr ODENWALDER: I don't know. Anyway, it is my next question.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: I don't know. I'm worried now. Minister, perhaps your adviser can explain to me what it means in layman's terms because I am a bit confused. I am sure it is excellent.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am trying to ascertain what the question is. I think it was fulsome, whatever the member for Elizabeth is going to tell me that means. Maybe this may help clear things up for him.

Criminal intelligence information may not be disclosed to any person other than the CE, the minister, a court or a person to whom the Commissioner of Police authorises disclosure. The proposed amendment adds to section 6 provisions with regard to criminal intelligence information that is provided by the Commissioner of Police to the CE in connection with new section 85CB, which provides for the CE to obtain certain information, including information in the nature of criminal intelligence, from the Commissioner of Police for the purpose of probity screening of prospective officers or employees of the department.

It is appropriate that the provisions with regard to the confidentiality of such criminal intelligence information provided for the purpose of new section 85CB sit with section 6, along with the current provision providing management of criminal intelligence information to the Commissioner of Police for the purpose of sections 34(4)(e) and 85A(1b) of the act. It is appropriate for these provisions to sit together.

I think, from recollection, you were asking some questions as to why this sits here and not further down the track. In short, I am informed, this has implications a bit further in the bill, if that clarifies.

Mr ODENWALDER: It actually does; thank you, minister. Are there any circumstances by which the minister himself or herself can obtain this information upon request?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed, as I think I just outlined, that this information can be disclosed to me if it was so deemed appropriate.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Ms BEDFORD: Can the minister tell me how many official visitors there are at the moment?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I believe there are 24.

Ms BEDFORD: Is that for every institution? That is for the whole of Adelaide?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is for all of DCS.

Ms BEDFORD: If we have one official visitor who is a Torres Strait Islander or Aboriginal person, one who is a legal practitioner and one who is a woman, there are eight prisons; is that correct?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Your prison numbers or your outlining of what there will be? I think the answer is yes.

Ms BEDFORD: You say at least one must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, one must be a legal practitioner and one must be a woman. If there are 24, that means there are three in each institution if there are eight institutions. Is this one of the things where not every position is filled and so we only have one person toiling away trying to do the job of three people?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I very much understand your point. That will be an operational decision. What we want to do is modernise and professionalise this. The outline of one woman and an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, I think that is the minimum, so it has to be at least one of those people in the pool or in the panel, as there is now, but this is something that we are looking to professionalise, for want of a better term, and increase the capacity and capability of, as far as I am informed.

Ms BEDFORD: We do not have that many people on roster at the moment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told there is no legislative requirement at the moment as to how many people we have in that pool. There are 24; that is what it is. That detail will be formed through operation as we go forward with this new scheme, but there will be, as you outlined, those specific people, and those specific groups have to be covered off. Speaking hypothetically, I would imagine there would be nothing against everyone being a female and a Torres Strait Islander, if that were the cohort of people. If you understand the principle, the idea is to have a diverse range of—

Ms Bedford: It could be a woman who is an Aboriginal and who is a legal practitioner.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And there could be 30 of them, who knows?

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: She would be busy, but I think you get the gist of what is happening there. It is just making sure that is the requirement, as far as I am informed, within the new regime.

Mr ODENWALDER: I think I am on the record as saying that I think this is a good idea. There have been some slight changes from 2017—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard: I said we were going to improve it.

Mr ODENWALDER: These are minor changes, and I emphasise 'minor changes', but anyway I think this is a good idea. First of all, is this based on any interstate examples in other jurisdictions in Australia? Perhaps a better question is: how does it compare? Are there other examples of how it compares to interstate arrangements?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that this is actually based on the Youth Justice model here in South Australia. As I outlined in my response speech, the aim is to have an inspectorate of prisons that is entirely compliant with the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the associated OPCAT convention. It is based on our Youth Justice system, I am informed, and it is to marry in with the OPCAT obligations that the federal government signed up for in 2017, I think it was.

Mr ODENWALDER: My final question then is: does the bill in its entirety make us, as a jurisdiction, fully compliant with our obligations under OPCAT? If I could, perhaps I will just contextualise that. There has been some suggestion, not from me but from some media sources, that we are in fact not compliant and that the minister himself and the government are resisting compliance. I just want a response to that too.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, that is not correct. Currently we are not compliant, so the system we were left with was not compliant. What I can tell you is the existing scheme provides for visiting inspectors to attend and inspect correctional institutions, with the act currently only providing for very basic inspection provisions, enabling the appointment and functions of inspectors.

We are looking to amend the provisions to strengthen the scheme and to make the official visitors of prisons OPCAT compliant; retain and strengthen the independence of the scheme; and allow for the appointment of diverse, skilled, independent and dynamic inspectors who meet contemporary needs, for example women, culturally diverse, Aboriginal and specialist—skilled in mental health, international standards and law, as the member for Florey has alluded to.

It is intended to also ensure a suitable gender balance that meets the contemporary needs of a prison population, including specialists in mental health and wellbeing and Aboriginal representatives; provide for a limited term of appointment—three years—to ensure that involvement can be extended or limited in accordance with any changing needs; provide detailed roles, functions and reporting obligations; and shift the focus of the scheme from inspection to one that considers and investigates prisoner complaints, which will assist in creating greater transparency and accountability.

So you can see, again, that the scheme we were left with, that was there before, was not OPCAT compliant. By bringing this in, it will make our scheme OPCAT compliant, I am informed.

Mr ODENWALDER: I agree with everything you said. I do not think it fully answered my question, though. My question was: does this bill in its entirety, and this measure in particular, make our jurisdiction fully compliant with all our OPCAT obligations? For instance, there has been—and I have not interrogated this particularly—some suggestion that OPCAT dictates that UN inspectors, for instance, can access prisons in Australian jurisdictions. This bill does not appear to address that. I wonder if the minister could answer that.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that with the amendments we are making we will be able to be designated as an NPM, which is a national preventative mechanism. Further to that, any OPCAT articles that are not provided for in this bill will be best provided for by the underpinning operational processes that will be established by the inspectorate. So, if there are any technicalities or pieces that do not meet the OPCAT article, they will be established by the inspectorate, I am informed here.

Mr ODENWALDER: So is the minister then saying—and again, I do not have a particular view formed on this yet—that once this inspectorate is established, through its own governance it will establish a system whereby United Nations inspectors, foreign inspectors presumably or certainly appointed by the United Nations, can freely inspect South Australian prisons? Is that the case?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, I have just been informed, and just for clarification, that it is the UN subcommittee on prevention of torture, the SPT; they will be able to come in, if they request—is what I am informed.

Clause passed.

New clause 9A.

Mr ODENWALDER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Odenwalder–2]—

Page 11, after line 17—Insert:

9A—Insertion of section 25A

After section 25 insert:

25A—Review of transfer of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person

(1) If the CE orders the transfer of a prisoner (a relevant transfer order) who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person from 1 correctional institution to another—

(a) the CE must provide a copy of the order to the prisoner; and

(b) 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, except in the case of an urgent transfer considered necessary for the health or safety of the prisoner or any other person.

(2) An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person the subject of a relevant transfer order, or a member of the person's family, may apply to SACAT for a review of the order under section 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 within 14 days of the day on which a copy of the order was provided to the person (or such longer period as SACAT may allow).

(3) ln this section—

SACAT means the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal established under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Earlier members will recall that we resolved on a previous motion to allow reviews of the transfer of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners under certain circumstances. I think the minister has given a commitment that he is happy to revisit this between the houses. I, of course, indicate that I am not happy with the provision that insists that any transfer under 200 kilometres is not reviewable, and we will be talking about it between the houses, I am assured, but we will certainly be prosecuting that in the upper house as well.

Again, I am happy that the government adopted our suggestion based on the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that such decisions of transfer of Aboriginal people are reviewable under certain circumstances. This insertion merely guides that review process. It states that, if the CE orders a transfer of such prisoner from one to another, he must provide a copy of the order to the prisoner, and 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.

I have inserted—and the minister has assured me he has seen this insertion—an addendum to my initial insertion, which provides 'except in the case of an urgent transfer considered necessary for the health or safety of the prisoner or any other person'. It was put to me, in the process of talking to some of the minister's advisers, that the time period of 14 days in which to call for such a review may in some cases be unreasonable, that the prisoner may need to be moved for health reasons or for the safety of himself or herself or some other person. I thought that sounds reasonable. I will amend my insertion to take that into consideration. Now it reads that a transfer—

The CHAIR: So, just to be clear, member for Elizabeth, we are talking about amendment No. 1 in your name; we are inserting 9A, we have agreed, but it is schedule 50(3).

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes. There has been some confusion, I apologise.

The CHAIR: There was no confusion; I just needed to clarify it for administrative purposes.

Mr ODENWALDER: I know you are paying fulsome attention to the debate, sir. Proposed subsection (2) of this insertion states:

(2) An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person the subject of a relevant transfer order, or a member of the person's family, may apply to SACAT for a review of the order under section 34...within 14 days of the day on which a copy of the order was provided to the person…

The provision before states:

(b) 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...

I have simply amended that after discussions with the minister's officers. I think its an improvement, stating that a transfer can be expedited more quickly without waiting for a review—there is still a need for a review, but without waiting for a review—before that transfer happens on the basis that it is in the interests of the health and safety of that prisoner or of another person. I am not sure what the minister in his bill intends the review process to look like, because the bill is silent on it, but I would interested to know what that is, and then I commend my own insertion to the committee.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I indicate that I will oppose this change. I only received it a short while ago, a bit like the member in one of the assertions he made before. I only received it this morning, so it has not been through the due process, so I will oppose it. The member is free to bring it back through the other house.

Mr ODENWALDER: With respect, minister, there is a very small change to this insertion.

The Hon. C.L. Wingard: You changed it today.

Mr ODENWALDER: Let's put on the record once again that I only received the minister's own amendment last night, so let's not play games with this. Indeed, I was happy to vote today in favour of that amendment without having taken it to my party room yet, unusually. This amendment formed an amendment that I filed, I think, two weeks ago.

The CHAIR: Yes, but just be cognisant of the fact that that amendment was not part of the bill, obviously, because it had never been put.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, it had never been put, but the insertion had been filed, in a slightly different form, I grant you.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is correct, but we are now talking specifically about schedule 50(3).

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, that is right. This schedule is based on an amendment I filed more than two weeks ago, in fact, and has been amended slightly after discussions with the minister's officers. They put their concerns to me about the initial amendments, so presumably they had seen them. If they had some concerns over them, they had already seen them and considered them and got some advice about them. The insertion that I make to it is in response to my understanding of that conversation.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To be clear, I will be opposing the amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 20

Noes 23

Majority 3

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Boyer, B.I.
Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. Close, S.E.
Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller)
Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
NOES
Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D.
Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Bignell, L.W.K. Basham, D.K.B.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 10.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand that, as you have outlined to the member for Florey, remandees will now be allowed to work or involve themselves in educational programs, etc. That is commendable, but I wonder how this interacts with the contractual arrangements with Serco, with the private provider of the services at the Adelaide Remand Centre.

Looking at the key performance indicators in that contract, there does not seem to be any requirement for any allowance to provide work to remandees. How will that impact on any of the financial arrangements, particularly within that contract? To clarify it, essentially what you are doing is changing the nature of the contract, which does not include, as one of its key performance indicators, any provision or allowance for work or education. I am wondering if there will be an impact.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No; I am informed that if it becomes law, they will have to administer that as such.

Mr ODENWALDER: So they will have to find funds within their contractual arrangements to provide an extra service, or some extra services, as the CE sees fit?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I have just been informed, following the transfer to Serco with those operations, the new service provisions now include the provisions at the site of specialised courses for remandees. These courses include life skills and community links. I am happy to get you more information on that from the CE if that would assist, but they are already in place, which is great news.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is great news. I have no further questions on clause 10.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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