HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Correctional Services Department

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:36): I seek leave to make an explanation prior to directing a question to the Minister for Correctional Services on the subject of departmental competence.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It was reported on the weekend that a prisoner on remand at the Adelaide Women's Prison was mistakenly released from custody by the Department for Correctional Services. The report was that the female prisoner in question appeared by video link in the Adelaide Magistrates Court for a driving whilst disqualified charge, which was dealt with by the court, and the prisoner then released from custody shortly afterwards. It has been reported that DCS staff, a short time later, then realised that the female in question actually still had assault charges pending, for which she was required to be held in remand. Again, it has been reported that police were subsequently notified and the female in question was returned to prison on the next day.

This bungle by the minister's department is the latest in a series of bungles that have been reported publicly over recent weeks. There are two examples: Mr Robert Rigney being turned away from prison and the police whilst trying to return from day release. Following this incident he was on the run for some 76 days. More recently, convicted murderer, Tara Kehoe, walking away from a prerelease work program on 7 October. Sadly it was confirmed about three weeks later, on the weekend, that her body had been found by police—she was dead—in Adelaide's south on 29 October.

In relation to the latest incident, that is in relation to the prisoner on remand at the Adelaide Women's Prison, the media has reported that the department or the government has instituted an inquiry into that latest bungle. My questions to the minister are:

1. Does the minister accept responsibility for the failings of the department, as highlighted in these three instances?

2. Who is conducting the inquiry into the latest bungle? Is it being done in-house or independent of the government, and will the minister undertake to release the details of the inquiry report?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:38): I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his questions. In an effort to highlight the difficult working environment that exists within our correctional services facilities, prisons are, by their nature, full of risk. When you put together somewhere in the order of a high 2,000 prisoners and you collate them into nine facilities across the state, when you put, for the lack of a better term, the worst of the worst together across nine facilities, you do create a risky environment. That is the nature of prisons. That is something that has, quite rightly, always been the case.

Part of the challenge, of course, for the Department for Correctional Services, and indeed for correctional services anywhere around the world, is to try to manage that risk, but at the same time fulfil the objective of trying to rehabilitate people to ensure that, when they do get released back into the community, it is done in a way that is smooth and minimises the risk of reoffending. Of course, that's very difficult. Of course, that's an incredibly difficult challenge.

During the Hon. Mr Lucas's explanation before his question, he highlighted a number of different cases. I take, for instance, the case he refers to of Ms Kehoe, who did not return to custody from a work release program. We know and always have known as a legislature that there is a degree of risk associated with prerelease-type activities that are aimed at reintegrating people back into the community. Being released on day release for a work program is a classic example of that.

I would very much welcome it if the Hon. Mr Lucas decided to stand up in this place and suggest that there should always be zero risk attached to that. I would be very surprised if he were to do such a thing because he would understand that there is risk associated with such an endeavour. The question before policymakers, including people opposite and myself, is whether or not we should completely abandon things like day release for work-related programs to try to completely eliminate that risk. In my judgement, the answer to that question is no. The reason for that is that we want to be able to maximise the likelihood of reduced reoffending from those people who will be released into the community.

It is an unavoidable fact that the overwhelming majority of people who find themselves in the state's custody will be released at some point or another as a result of a decision made by a judge in a court somewhere else—the majority of people who find themselves in custody will be released at some point or another. The obligation upon policymakers, myself and the Department for Correctional Services is to try to do everything we can to minimise the likelihood of someone reoffending when they are released back into the community. This means that we have to try to balance risk versus rehabilitative programs—reintegration back into the community to maximise the safety of the community. That is an approach that I endorse.

In respect to other incidents that have occurred in prison: yes, things go wrong, and we have to make sure that, when those things go wrong, efforts are made to make sure that such mistakes aren't repeated. Regarding the person that was released in error recently, I have been advised that an internal review is being conducted by the Department for Correctional Services and already they have put in place a number of measures to try to ensure that those people who are finding themselves going through a process of in-house hearings through videoconferencing facilities, as was the case with the incident that the Hon. Mr Lucas recently referred to, are not released in error, despite some of the complexities that are associated with having those hearings while in a custodial environment.

Already a couple of steps have been put in place to minimise that likelihood. I very much hope that that delivers a dividend in respect to the department not seeing the type of mistake that the Hon. Mr Lucas has referred to in that particular instance.

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