HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 October 2009. Page 3687.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (12:04): I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I would like to start by thanking the shadow attorney-general for providing our main contribution in the other place. The shadow attorney-general addressed our concerns in great detail, so I will not go through them again. However, I do wish to reiterate a number of the shadow attorney-general's concerns and place them on the record. The main point the opposition has made about the legislation is that there is a lot that it fails to address; but, in the end, much of it is sensible and requires the support of the parliament. It is therefore not our intention to delay the legislation.

As both the shadow attorney-general and the shadow minister for correctional services in the other place have stated, it is unfortunate that we have had to debate this bill earlier than we were first advised by the government. As the shadow attorney-general indicated, we have been undertaking a substantial amount of consultation with interested parties on this legislation. Regrettably, it has taken a long time for some of these parties to get back to us with their advice, so it is somewhat disappointing that we have been pushed into debating this issue right now and not given time to go through the full process. That being said, we move on, and the opposition is thankful for the briefings with which we were provided by correctional services staff.

The Minister for Correctional Services introduced this bill on 17 June 2009, which claims to streamline existing processes and maximise the use of the Department for Correctional Services' resources and remove the impediments that impact on effective custodial management. The opposition has argued that the amendments that are presented to us in this bill reflect what we call the Rann government's centralised policy on the management of our prisons and, in particular, the prisoners.

The Rann government's centralist approach is evidenced by reforms, which include the removal of committees, the increase of management and punishment options in respect of the Chief Executive Officer and the exclusion of the minister from some of this decision-making process, which we believe is not in the best interests of the protection of those in custody. As the shadow attorney indicated in the other place, that is not meant to be a personal reflection on the Chief Executive Officer who currently holds that position or that he would ever act in a manner that is inconsistent with the interests of the prisoners.

We just make the point that, here in this parliament, we do not make legislation on the assumption of the views of a particular person who might hold office. Legislation completely ignores that aspect and assumes that a person with that responsibility may or may not have the same standards as the incumbent. We make the decisions here based on the lowest common denominator, as the shadow attorney put it, and when we look at the checks and balances that operate in relation to any legislation where there is considerable control of management—and in this case we are talking about people who are incarcerated—it is a pretty serious matter and one we really need to get right.

The shadow attorney has already explained that it is the opposition's belief that we do not have it right in relation to this bill. We have already queried and asked for a review between the houses on a number of aspects. Having said that, I place on the record the opposition's support for the amendments moved by the member for Mitchell in the other place regarding abolishing automatic parole for violent offenders; namely, those people who are in prison as a result of being convicted of offences such as assault, stalking, leaving the scene of an accident, kidnapping, unlawful threats, home invasion and aggravated robbery. Whilst the opposition party room did not have time to consider that specific amendment, members might be aware that the state Liberal's position and part of our last election policy is that all offenders—not just those involved in violent offences—who have been incarcerated for more than 12 months should appear before the Parole Board before release.

We have argued for years that this is something that needs to be done and, as the shadow attorney stated in the other place, there has been support from the community and those who have a specific interest, including Frances Nelson QC as Chair of the Parole Board, who has made several public statements about the need for more offenders to appear before the Parole Board before release. I for one certainly find it peculiar that the government tries to paint us wrongly as being soft on crime, when this has been a strong position we have taken for some time now. The member for Mitchell's sensible amendment is the type of provision we would always support.

Lastly, I take the opportunity to explain the amendments that will be moved in my name on behalf of our party. These amendments have come from the member for Davenport and have been considered by the government between the houses. I am pleased that the Minister for Correctional Services has indicated that he will consider them carefully. The member for Davenport's original bill (Correctional Services (Parole) Amendment Bill), which was introduced some months ago, sought to prevent individuals who had been convicted for certain arson and bushfire offences and who were serving a sentence of less than five years from being eligible for automatic parole. It was a sensible bill and it is a shame that it was adjourned on several occasions in the other place. It was proposed so as to reduce the risk of arsonists reoffending after being released prematurely and to serve as a deterrent from offending in the first place.

The first amendment deals with individuals convicted of certain arson and bushfire offences. The member for Davenport explained in the other place that it uses exactly the same words as the bill which he tabled on 30 April this year and which was adjourned a number of times. That bill related to arson and bushfires and provided that those people gaoled for arson in certain categories (as per the bill) of a bushfire offence should not get automatic parole. These are dangerous offenders. Members are well aware of the carnage and loss of life created by deliberately lit fires. We believe it is important and it makes sense that these types of offenders should also have to make their case to the Parole Board for their release, instead of being entitled to automatic release.

On Tuesday, I was delighted that the Minister for Correctional Services put out a press release advising that the government is supporting this amendment. The minister stated that the government will always listen to and support good ideas wherever they come from. In fact, he said that is why 'I am happy to support the changes to the law flagged by the member for Davenport (Hon. Iain Evans)'. I congratulate the Rann government for realising that it had not gone far enough on this bill and it was not tough enough. I congratulate it for taking the advice of the opposition to make these laws stronger.

The transitional provision provides that, where the Parole Board has already decided the date of release for a prisoner who was sentenced to imprisonment of less than five years with a nonparole period, that decision stands. Without this transitional provision, the position for prisoners in these circumstances is unclear, and we believe that that is wrong in principle. With those comments I conclude my remarks and look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:11): I indicate the support of Family First for the second reading. I will address a range of issues relating to corrections in my contribution, and I foreshadow that we are looking at filing some amendments to the bill. I indicate at this point that, generally, the amendments take up the minister (Hon. Tom Koutsantonis) on his promise on talkback radio to my colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC, that he will be taking a zero tolerance approach to drugs in prison, something for which I commend him. We would like to support the government in that important commitment, as well as looking at reforming the treatment of victims in the parole system and expanding the matters that should be considered on the question of whether to release a prisoner on parole and the conditions under which they should be released.

I also put on the record that I do have some concerns about MOCamp, the work camps that have been operating for some time and, in particular, Operation Challenge. I ask the minister at the committee stage to advise me—giving time now for his staff to look at it—why Operation Challenge was cancelled; whether or not they intend to bring back Operation Challenge; and whether or not they would also look at some other operations similar to Operation Challenge that may be framed to assist our indigenous people in particular.

I raised bullying and harassment in this council just recently. I raised the issue of two constituents who work in correctional services, Mr Neil Franklin and Mr Alan Radford, in an MOI last week but, given that this is a miscellaneous amendment bill for correctional services, I will be looking at issues in respect of bullying and harassment, and human resource management within correctional services.

It is also interesting to note admissions by the Under Treasurer, Mr Jim Wright, at Monday's Budget and Finance Committee that the government faces compensation of up to $15 million for failing to go ahead with the Mobilong prison expansion. Whilst I was concerned and opposed to the fact that women were to be relocated to Mobilong, which is wrong—it is wrong for the women and it is wrong for their families and children—the fact is that we do need upgraded facilities for correctional services and we cannot continue to push the line that we will rack them, stack them and pack them, as the Treasurer does.

I will also raise a couple of other issues in this second reading contribution. One concerns looking at other aspects of rehabilitation within correctional services. I have already mentioned the MOCamps, Operation Challenge and initiatives to bring in programs similar to Operation Challenge, but specifically to design programs for different offenders.

I advise the council and the government that we will continue to look at issues regarding the faith-based units in prisons. It is interesting that the founder of Prison Fellowship (which does a good job in South Australia, and I always enjoyed working with them when I had this portfolio), Chuck Colson, was often quoted as saying that the church and the state want the same thing: changed lives, drug-free, crime-free, working, tax-paying citizens. That should be the bottom line objective in any rehabilitation within the prison system, particularly when you consider that taxpayers are paying about $80,000 a year for every prisoner in the system. For the record, in October 2002, a former member of this place the Hon. Andrew Evans said:

I ask all members who must be concerned about our crime rate, the growing prison costs, the ever-increasing insurance premiums and the need for additional police to consider faith based initiatives for reducing the return to prison rates and crime rates. I urge the government and the community to support something that has been proven to work.

Interestingly enough, since then there has been huge success in New Zealand, and I know that even the CEO of Correctional Services has visited them. A number of these programs are working in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States of America.

I put that on the public record at the second reading stage without spending as much time on it as I could at this point. However, it would be good if the department and the government looked at some of these policy initiatives, as they would certainly get support from Family First, and Family First will further develop this initiative as part of our policy platform and position paper coming up to the next election.

I put this as an option to the government that I believe could reduce recidivism rates by up to two-thirds, as that is how successful some of these programs have been, and it would be great if that money then went into other more productive areas. Even if it is amongst only those who voluntarily choose to enter a trial program in a prison, surely it is an option worth considering for both economic and social reasons. I conclude with a number of questions on notice to the minister:

1. Will the minister explain the level of internet use by prisoners, the purpose for which they use the internet and the safeguards in place to ensure prisoners cannot interact with members of the public on the internet?

2. Are prisoners entitled to have computer games in prison; if so, are there any controls on the rating of the games they are allowed to access?

3. Are any restrictions imposed on television programs or videos available for viewing?

4. How many inmates are currently in prison, and what are the projections over forward years for prison numbers in South Australia?

5. How many home detention bracelets are in the department's possession (broken down into operational and non-operational), and what is the budget into forward estimates for such bracelets to be acquired and brought onstream?

6. What has been the activity of the section 70 visiting tribunals and section 20 inspectors in terms of the number of visits to each correctional institution by either and their findings on those visits? Are any visits made without notice to the institution?

7. Has the minister declared any probation hostels; if so, how many are there, how many beds do they have and what is their location?

As I have already said, I ask the minister to advise on the status of the MOCamps and the background to ceasing Operation Challenge. Again, I foreshadow my amendments that will be on file, and I will speak further to those when they are tabled. I support the second reading and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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