HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Prison Administration

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into the government’s administration of South Australia’s Prisons with particular reference to—

(a) the costs and impacts (upon prison officers, prisoners and the South Australian community) of the combined prison system operating continually above approved capacity;

(b) the government’s forecasted prison capacity in relation to its forecasted prisoner population;

(c) the correlation, if any, between prison overcrowding and the breakdown in proper administration of prisons;

(d) the following incidents which occurred between July and October 2016:

(i) a prisoner given leave to attend a funeral but was prevented from re-entering the Yatala Labour Prison at the appointed time;

(ii) a prisoner convicted of murder and rape was allowed to umpire an amateur football match;

(iii) two prisoners were able to tunnel under a prison fence and gain access to a prohibited area at Port Augusta Prison, then start a truck with the intention of driving it through a perimeter fence and, when noticed, held officers at bay within the prohibited area for four hours;

(iv) a prisoner has died and three prison officers hospitalised following a violent altercation at Yatala Labour Prison;

(v) a prisoner convicted of murder disappeared from a Corrections supervisor;

(vi) the recent seven-hour siege at Port Augusta Prison; and

(e) any other relevant matter.

2. That standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 2 November 2016.)

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (20:58): I rise in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Mr Terry Stephens. During my time as Minister for Correctional Services—which, of course, has been a rare privilege—I think I have been incredibly up front with the South Australian community, and indeed this council, regarding the very substantial challenges facing the South Australian correctional services system.

As a consequences of many of the challenges that other people within the community and, indeed, myself have regularly identified and sought to draw to the South Australian public's attention, I established a policy that seeks to address the challenge at the core of the current issues that face the South Australian correctional services system and, in my view, that is principally the challenge of recidivism.

Since early August, a strategic policy panel that I appointed has been working diligently with the department and a range of stakeholders within the correctional services sector and, indeed, the non-government sector canvassing ideas in order to develop an appropriate policy response to reduce reoffending to meet a target that both I and the cabinet have set the state. I look forward in due course to formally receiving the panel's recommendations. I should note that I am meeting with panel members later this week for a more formal meeting to receive their recommendations in a face-to-face context.

I can assure the South Australian community that the Department for Correctional Services is committed to achieving the recently announced target of reducing reoffending by 10 per cent by 2020. If met, this target would see South Australia as a national leader and as a provider of a fair and just correctional system that appropriately punishes but also prevents offenders from returning. That vision should be at the core of the department's purpose as the Department for Correctional Services seeks a safer community by protecting the public and reducing reoffending and aims to deliver on its mission of contributing to safety through safe, secure and humane management of offenders and the provision of opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration.

I welcome members of this council seeking to engage in the public discussion required to rethink the manner in which law and order, crime and punishment are debated in the South Australian community. Furthermore, I welcome all members who seek an opportunity to educate themselves on the correctional system and who actively seek to assist the Department for Correctional Services and the government in achieving its vision and mission to do so.

However, I do fear that the motion introduced into this council by the Hon. Mr Terry Stephens may also seek to detract from the successful work already being undertaken by the government and the department and seeks only to politicise an important area of public policy in which the community must have confidence. I would stress that there is no jurisdiction in the world that is able to manage a correctional services system without incident; that is, quite simply, not possible.

I would also stress that the challenges experienced in the South Australian correctional system are not unique to South Australia. Members should be assured that every Australian jurisdiction are experiencing similar, if not identical, issues to the ones that are experienced here. The challenges posed by issues, such as increased prisoner populations, ageing infrastructure, longer sentences and an ageing prisoner demographic are universal and challenges that require a bipartisan approach to resolve them.

While issues such as those identified by the Hon. Mr Stephens are without doubt regrettable, there is no correlation between the current administration of the department and the occurrence of those events. There is not the proof required to establish a connection between the events to warrant the establishment of a select committee. I am confident that, despite the recent events, our system has within it fail safes and mechanisms to prevent other incidents occurring.

At no stage during any of the events purportedly spurning the requirement to establish a select committee was the safety of the South Australian community put in danger—a very important point. This is a point that needs to be stressed and it is not coincidence. It is the professionalism and commitment of dedicated staff which ensures that incidents are kept to a minimum and, when they do arise, are dealt with in a timely manner. Therefore, it is in the hope that the Hon. Mr Stephens seeks to further the safety of the South Australian community through the establishment of a committee designed to assist in tackling the challenge rather than conducting a political witch-hunt that I am happy to commend the motion to the house.

I have often made comment in other forums outside of this particular chamber that I think part of the challenge in respect to corrections is not just a policy challenge. The policy is complex, that is true, but it also reflects a challenge that is political, as is always the case. I am sure that people who have served in this place for longer than I would attest to that. All too often—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That's everybody.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That is everybody. They would attest to the fact that politics informs policy. If we do not believe that politics informs policy, then we probably should not be here, and corrections is no different. In fact, I would argue in many respects politics has entirely formed the policy of corrections and, if we are honest with ourselves, that is not always necessarily in the interests of the public.

It is incumbent upon everybody in this place that, if we are going to pursue a more progressive policy in respect to corrections that is going to make the community safer, we have to be honest that we have a political responsibility as well to not try to inflame issues as they arise in corrections in such a way that is aimed at scoring political points but, rather, seek to—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Rack, pack and stack.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Indeed. The Hon. Mr Wade interjects, and I am happy to repeat his interjection in reference to the terms that the Hon. Mr Foley used of racking, packing and stacking. I think that is a classic example of where—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It was continued by Rau.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am agreeing with you—just relish in that moment. I am agreeing that people on both sides of the chamber have sought to exploit the politics of corrections in such a way that is not to the betterment of public policy generally. I have made reference to the 'rack 'em, pack 'em, stack 'em' comment, which I do not think has assisted policy and does serve as an example of seeking to exploit political point scoring at the expense of public policymaking.

If we want a better outcome in respect to corrections, then we have to accept the fact that politics plays a significant role in trying to pursue that because we cannot change the policy unless we change the politics. Changing the politics means that we have to educate the South Australian community so that they appreciate that there is a need to change the policy. In my view, it is not okay to be spending in the order of between $70,000 and $100,000 a year locking someone up only to get an outcome which is that 46 per cent of those people, on whom we are spending $70,000 to $100,000 a year locking up, are reoffending. That is not a satisfactory result.

Yes, it is true that our reoffending rate is better than in other parts of the country, but I do not think that is a standard that is reasonable. I think that if we are going to spend extraordinary amounts of money locking people up, the South Australian public should have confidence that it is delivering an outcome in a rehabilitative context that in turn leads to a reduction in reoffending. That is what I want the focus to be on.

I look at the terms of reference for this particular committee and, as I said, I am supporting the motion to establish a committee. I sincerely hope that, when I look at the terms of reference, it seems in part to be aimed at political pointscoring, that is not the true objective of this select committee. I welcome the efforts of the select committee if it is going to join together in trying to inform public policy in such a way that will result in a reduction in reoffending, which will alleviate pressure on overcrowding within our prisons and which will allow the department to focus its energy more so on rehabilitation, which is ultimately in the interests of all South Australians. The majority of offenders—in fact almost all—do get released from prison at some point or another. That is an inevitability.

The question we have to ask ourselves as a community is: what sort of people do we want to be releasing back into society? Do we want to release people back into society who are more angry or more frustrated with their lot in life than before they entered the system, or do we want to release people back into the community who are genuinely reformed, who genuinely are going to try to make a positive contribution to the community—whether that means being actively engaged with their own families, or actively engaged in the community, such as perhaps participating in an amateur league football game—or do we want them to be back at work making a positive contribution to the economy, or earning the dignity that comes with all work performed?

These are the sorts of questions the committee should be turning its attention towards and, to the extent that the select committee will be focusing on delivering quality public policy, I wholeheartedly welcome it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:09): I rise very briefly to support the motion of the Hon. Terry Stephens and to commend the minister for his words. I do believe that this is an area that should not be for political pointscoring, and I do believe this is an area where we want justice in its broadest form and justice for all who are involved in it—a just justice system, in fact. Whether our policies of being tough with law and order are leading to what we are seeing, what concerns me the most about the current situation with our corrections system is why we have such an over-representation of certain types of people in our prisons.

I cannot understand, after 25 years and 339 recommendations on from the Aboriginal deaths in custody report, why we have such a high level of Aboriginal deaths in custody continuing to happen and why we have such a high level of Aboriginal people being incarcerated that is continuing to rise. Surely we are better, as a society, than this. Of course, members would be well aware, and the minister is well aware, that I am particularly interested in hearing the voices with regard to the case of Wayne 'Fella' Morrison and why a man who had never been in prison before ends up dying in custody a few days later.

I certainly believe that his family and their calls for the release of the CCTV footage, and their calls for answers and an independent inquiry, should be heeded. I believe that the words of the Aboriginal co-commissioner, Frank Lampard, should be listened to and that an independent investigation is needed to provide a sense to the community and, particularly in this case, the Indigenous community that we have a just justice system. I think that is what we would all like to see. With those few words, I support the motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:11): I appreciate that I am not on the official speakers list, but I simply want to add a few brief comments to indicate Dignity for Disability's support for the establishment of this committee. I do not intend to go over the many reasons why that is the case—other members have done that quite eloquently and quite sufficiently—but I would go as far as to say that I think the fact that a government minister, who has oversight of the very system that will be looked at by this committee, is standing up and supporting the establishment of a committee to oversee these issues, these problems, is indeed indicative of the size of the issue.

I very much look forward to this issue getting the attention it deserves and the parliament handing down some recommendations that will, I hope, make a very real and very lasting practical difference to the treatment of prisoners in this state. I also note, however, that the federal parliament committee inquiry into the indefinite detention of people with cognitive and psychiatric impairment in Australia has, just today actually, handed down its report. Amongst other things, it shows us, unsurprisingly to me unfortunately, that there are far too many people in prison with a diagnosis of a disability or condition and that access to the justice system, including courts and police, remains very limited to many people with disabilities.

The report recommends that each state and territory follows South Australia's lead—indeed, Dignity for Disability's lead—in establishing their own disability justice plans. It also recommends some further changes to the Communication Partner Service to ensure that we have the proper support in place to allow people to communicate in courts and in prisons. As I understand it, it recommends the expansion of the Community Visitor Scheme to enable the community visitor to visit prisons to make recommendations about the treatment of prisoners with health conditions and disabilities.

Of course, there are many recommendations, thankfully. I have not yet had the chance to read them all, but I certainly look forward to their being implemented in the state also, where applicable, and I hope that there may be some scope for this committee to look into these issues as well because they are vitally important. There are many people with disabilities currently in our prisons who I believe do not need to be there and who could be out of prison, as the minister says, contributing to their community either through work or community participation with the right social and physical supports around them, and, as a happy coincidence, save the state a lot of money in doing so.

I will continue to work through those recommendations. The report has only come out today but, as I have said, I hope that there will be some scope for this committee to consider these vitally important issues. With those words, I lend Dignity for Disability's very strong support to the motion.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (21:14): I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions. Minister, I am pleased to hear your contribution. I would like to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her support and contribution and the honourable 'superfish', sorry, the Hon. Kelly Vincent. I get confused now that I know you are the 'superfish', Hon. Ms Vincent.

I am pleased that we have overwhelming support for this particular motion. Ultimately, minister, the buck does stop with you with regard to corrections. You acknowledge it and we all know that. But I also acknowledge that corrections is something that everybody in South Australia should consider because ultimately a released prisoner could well live next door or across the road. They are going to come back into society. I believe that we can improve the way we handle the corrections facility.

The minister was good enough to meet with the Hon. Chuck DeVore when he came out from Texas recently, as did my leader, Steven Marshall, the member for Dunstan. I am a right wing member of the parliament—shock, horror. The Hon. Chuck DeVore comes from the Texas public policy group and they are considerably right wing, but their philosophy is about getting good outcomes for people in the correctional facilities so that they come back as good members of society, therefore reducing the costs on the system.

As I said in my matter of interest earlier today, in Texas they house their prisoners for about 25 per cent of what it costs us in South Australia. Having witnessed firsthand the effort that they go to with regard to work programs and meaningful education, I was really impressed when I visited. Minister, I do not expect you to read my matter of interest, but hopefully one of your minions will. I encourage you today to take the opportunity, if you can, to visit that system in Texas because it is truly inspiring.

I have been pleased with the fact that a number of members are keen to serve on this particular committee. I think we can work constructively to make recommendations to improve the system because, as I said before, corrections is something that all South Australians need to be concerned about and we absolutely want better outcomes. I am thankful for the indications of support and I look forward to working with the members on the committee constructively so that we can make good recommendations to improve the system.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (21:18): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. T.A. Franks, the Hon. J.M. Gazzola, the Hon. T.T. Ngo, the Hon. D.W. Ridgway and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

That the select committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 9 August 2017.

Motion carried.

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