HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (GPS TRACKING FOR CHILD SEX OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 May 2012.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (19:47): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the Correctional Services (GPS Tracking for Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012. The Hon. Ann Bressington introduced the bill in the Legislative Council on 30 May 2012. The bill seeks to ensure that child sex offenders who are either on parole or on a leave of absence from prison are fitted with a global positioning system device which will track their movements. It is intended that Correctional Services will monitor the GPS tracking service so that breaches of the child sex offender's release conditions can be identified and prosecuted.

GPS tracking for the most serious child sex offenders is not new in Australia. In early 2012, Western Australia introduced a similar scheme and, as of April 2012, 79 criminals in Queensland and 30 in New South Wales had been fitted with GPS tracking devices. The Victorian Coalition government committed to introducing a similar scheme during the 2010 election. The Department of Corrections in Florida has indicated that their use of such technology has significantly reduced recidivism rates.

The Hon. Ann Bressington has tabled a petition with over 1,700 signatures supporting this scheme, and other Australian jurisdictions are actively utilising this technology. The Liberal opposition considers that South Australia should also take advantage of this new technological tool to enhance the protection of South Australian children. We understand the Police Association is generally supportive of the bill, although they did indicate concern that specifying the type of technology in legislation may hinder the scheme as more effective technology becomes available. The Liberal opposition commends the bill to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (19:49): I thank the Hon. Ann Bressington for this bill and acknowledge her interest in and commitment to reducing crime. The government indicates it will not oppose the bill in the Legislative Council. However, the government intends to introduce more comprehensive legislation in the near future. While the bill is a good starting point, the government wants to go further and intends to introduce stronger provisions. The honourable member's bill is well intentioned and provides for the electronic tracking of child sex offenders released on parole and the monitoring of prisoners convicted for child sex offences participating in approved pre-release and reintegration activities requiring leave from prison.

However, there are some limits on the drafting of the bill. While it is understandable that the focus is on prisoners and parolees who have been convicted of a child sex offence to be subject to heightened monitoring, the government has been considering the application of this type of technology in other jurisdictions and intends to go further and not limit this kind of supervision necessarily to this particular offence type but, rather, to look at prisoners and parolees who are assessed as requiring this type of supervision.

In fact, that is what the government has done with regard to parole amendments to the Correctional Services Act enacted in November 2012. One of those amendments provides for the Parole Board to consider as a condition of parole that the person be monitored by the use of an electronic device for the whole period or part thereof on parole. This means that all prisoners being released on parole can be considered for this type of heightened supervision regardless of offence type.

The new provision is not limited to a specific technology or just to child sex offenders. The new provision that was recently introduced could be used wherever it is appropriate for any offence. In the same manner, the government will be looking to extend the provision for prisoners on approved leave from prison and not limited to offence type. This would mean prisoners who are serious repeat violent offenders or people who have committed sex offences against adults or persons deemed to present an extreme risk to safety. Any of these types of offenders, including child sex offenders of course, could be considered worthy of the additional monitoring.

In addition to this, the title of the bill suggests that tracking is intended to occur through a GPS device, although the bill refers to an electronic tracking device of a kind approved by the minister. The bill, as drafted, limits the technology. Clearly the honourable member is referring to this state introducing GPS technology for the monitoring of offenders in the community. South Australia currently does not employ GPS technology for this purpose. Its potential was evaluated a number of years ago. At that time there remained a number of issues and other matters for consideration and an extensive implementation of GPS monitoring for offenders was not recommended and it was not progressed at the time.

It is probably fair to say that the technology has a high level of public interest, and confidence in this type of monitoring will be of some value in the further consideration of its adoption in South Australia as an additional monitoring and supervision tool for offenders assessed as presenting a risk to the community. The legislation should therefore allow for current and future technologies, not just current technologies.

The government proposes to introduce legislation to enable a broader scope for electronic monitoring and not restrict it to tracking, as all types of technologies could then be considered if and when the technology is adopted for use now and in the future.

The Department for Correctional Services currently uses electronic monitoring for certain offenders in the community and it has proved to be an effective tool. Its use directly contributes to improved public safety. Electronic monitoring is currently mostly used for the supervision of offenders on home detention and intensive bail supervision (often referred to as home detention bail). For example, regarding the number of offenders, I am advised that, as of January 2013, 385 electronic monitoring units were leased and, of these, 321 were being used—an average of 88 per cent of available units in daily use.

Opportunities to expand electronic monitoring are always appropriately considered. It is also worth noting that the honourable member's bill is limited to parolees in the community and prisoners engaged in activities outside of prison. The government would like to further consult and make sure it extends to include those who are ordered by the courts to be released on licence, for example.

While the Parole Board contributes to the conditions of such persons to be released on licence, to remove all doubt that these offenders can be subject to such electronic monitoring upon release, further consultation with the Parole Board and the Attorney-General is required, as those subject to indeterminate sentences (sections 23 and 24 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act) are released by an order of the courts.

Similarly, persons detained in accordance with part 8A and section 269 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act can be released on licence through a court order, and it would be prudent to ensure that electronic monitoring could be considered for these offenders on release.

The honourable member raised in her speech a particular prisoner who is currently subject to an order of indeterminate detention in accordance with section 23 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act. Should he be released he will be released through a court order on licence subject to strict conditions. The government would like to make absolutely sure that any legislation will capture offenders such as the example given for consideration of electronic monitoring upon release on custody, which will require some further consultation and preparation of a government bill. I indicate that the government will not be opposing the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (19:55): Whilst I would hope that it is no secret that Dignity for Disability takes the issue of child sex offences very seriously, I speak today against the Hon. Ann Bressington's bill. I, like other members of this place, appreciate the work she does in this area and her concern for the welfare of children, which is, I am sure, a concern we all share, but I do not believe that the answer is, in this case, to attach GPS tracking devices to sex offenders. I think that would be an incredibly expensive way to keep track of sex offenders and I do not think it would be truly practical in the real world. GPS tracking does not tell us, for example, what someone is doing in a particular location, nor what their motivations or intentions might be for being there.

The money that would be spent on GPS tracking, I believe, could be better spent on rehabilitation for sex offenders or, indeed, to make our courts more accessible to allow children as witnesses therefore making them less likely to be abused because the perpetrator is less likely to get away with it. This is, of course, something that Dignity for Disability has been working very hard on for a long time now. To ensure our children's safety we must improve other pieces of legislation, indeed all relevant pieces of legislation, and change the culture of a society that does not understand or respond to the vulnerability of our children. I do support the efforts, I support the general principle, but the method I cannot support and therefore I cannot support the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (19:57): I am pleased that the Liberal Party has chosen to support the bill and that the Labor Party is not going to oppose it. I was hoping this bill would be limited to sex offenders to start with, as a bit of a trial to see what technology could be utilised and how it would work. I have to say I am a little bit nervous about the government's intention to extend this technology to other areas first. I disagree with the Hon. Kelly Vincent about putting this money into the rehabilitation of child sex offenders because the evidence is that 98 per cent of these people cannot be rehabilitated. They are damaged human beings, probably from abuse suffered in their own childhood.

Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs quotes from research that states that before a child sex offender has been caught they have, on average, committed between 400 and 700 acts of child abuse. That would indicate that this is entrenched behaviour, foremost. I have also spoken with people from the paedophile taskforce and the FBI in the United States who have said that the rehabilitation of an individual requires them to admit that they have actually done wrong, that they have done harm to another human being. Child sex offenders are the hardest nuts to crack because, in their eyes, they believe this is how you show love towards a child, so it is very rare, according to a member of the paedophile task force in America, to be able to get them to admit that they have done harm.

I do not know whether other members in this place have had access to an interview that was done with a paedophile in Queensland. Not the one who committed suicide, but another. This person was doing a media interview and when they asked him, 'Do you not think that a child aged two years old is too young to have sex with?' he said, 'No, they love it; they love it.' These are the sorts of individuals we are dealing with.

The Hon. Kyam Maher referred in this place to one particular person, Mark Trevor Marshall. I have raised concerns about Mr Marshall's release on a number of occasions. Justice Nyland put him on indefinite detention and then 12 months later lifted that, and it was only one week before he was due to be released that he was found with child porn in his cell.

I have met with well over 50 of Mark Trevor Marshall's alleged victims—he has been convicted numerous times. These people have never come forward. They have never pressed charges because they are damaged and afraid, but the stories they told me of what this man did to them as small children is heartbreaking.

I note that Mark Trevor Marshall is now up for release again, and that we are looking to house him in community housing. The last time he was released there was no court licence—there was nothing—and he went on to abuse two children. Actually, he was not released: he was in a resocialisation program and going to TAFE in Elizabeth.

He was getting a taxi from TAFE to a Catholic school in Elizabeth North, taking his stepchildren out of school, and taking them to a house where he would abuse them and then return them to school that afternoon. He threatened the children that he would kill them and their mother if they told anybody. This is the sort of man we are dealing with, and these are the sorts of people I wanted to be able to keep an eye on and keep track of through this particular piece of legislation.

The monitoring devices that we are using for home detention do not do that; basically, it is by ring-in. This particular system that I was referring to has no-go zones, where if the wearer steps inside an area that is dedicated to children or is known to have a lot of children, or where they have offended in the past, there is an alert. I do believe that in Western Australia there is a 10-minute response to that alarm. If they run, they are trackable, and it is back to gaol. There are no ifs, buts or maybes. If they breach those conditions, they are gone.

There is now so much angst in the community about our children not being able to go out and ride their bikes or go for a walk in the park, and just be kids, without being supervised. So many parents are living in fear that these maniacs are out there on bail, or they go to court and get a slap on the wrist; basically, there is no message sent at all.

I am not going to go on forever, but I will just remind members of a gentleman who rang in on Leon Byner's show when we were talking about another bill. He had served time in Yatala for a reasonably minor offence, but he was overhearing these paedophiles in gaol talking amongst themselves, and he said that the whole time they are in there they are plotting and planning how they are going to reoffend when they get out, and how they think they are going to beat the system to be able to do that. He said the conversations that you overhear make you want to throw up.

As much as I believe in treatment and rehabilitation for most sections of the community and for most people, I believe that 98 per cent of these people—and I stick with that; that is what research shows—cannot be rehabilitated, and to take a risk in our community for just 2 per cent of people who may be able to be rehabilitated is a huge risk to be taking.

I thank the government for considering this, and I thank the opposition and other members that I know have offered contributions and support for this. I will be interested to see the bill the government produces, and how long it will take.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I did not make a second reading contribution on behalf of Family First, but we support this legislation and believe that it is an important step in the right direction.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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