The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:35): I rise on behalf of the opposition to respond to the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. In that context, I thank my honourable colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens for working with me to analyse this bill as it dealt with both parole and prison management issues. We worked together across what is basically a whole-of-criminal-justice project.

Following a number of high-profile cases of parolee reoffending, the then minister for correctional services, minister Koutsantonis, announced on 28 September 2010 that he would be consulting on draft legislation to reform parole laws. The bill that resulted from that consultation process was tabled on 8 June 2011, and it seeks to introduce a range of measures in relation to both prison management and parole management. On behalf of the opposition, I would like to particularly thank Mr Peter Severin, the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services for his briefings.

The press release which heralded the start of this process was issued by minister Koutsantonis with a headline, 'Greater powers for authorities in parole law shakeup'. That headline highlights the whole focus of the government in relation to this bill. I think the Hon. Terry Stephens would agree with me that, in relation to prison management, a lot of the matters are sensible; however, in relation to parole, this has all the hallmarks of a continuation of a government's attack on the Parole Board. The press release states:

Every police patrol will have unprecedented power to act as a 'mini parole board' under the biggest shakeup of the state's parole laws to be introduced in parliament in 30 years.

Unprecedented power. This is a government which makes no apology for gratuitous overstatements. However, to then refer to every police officer as a mini parole board is demeaning of the skill and experience of the Parole Board. I have huge respect for South Australian police. They do an exemplary job, but to ever expect one man or one woman to actually embody all of the experience and skills of the Parole Board when they are out on the beat is asking too much of any person.

Let me remind members who constitutes the Parole Board. The Parole Board brings together legal expertise, victims' representatives, psychiatric specialists, social workers, people of Aboriginal descent and a former police officer. Indeed, it does have the police expertise that a police officer on the beat would have, but it also brings together a whole range of other skills, a whole range of other perspectives. Also, the Parole Board is supported by a network of community corrections officers, and it is headed by one of South Australia's leading criminal justice specialists, Frances Nelson QC.

I think the minister's press release is ample evidence of the government's lack of respect for the Parole Board, a lack of respect that recurs in this bill. It reminds me of the case of Shane Andrew Robinson. Mr Robinson was a relatively young man who was released from prison on parole in July 2009. He went on to engage in a shocking siege near Yunta. He seriously assaulted an older lady, he seriously injured a police officer, Mr Jeffrey Allen, and he went on to kill himself. It was indeed a tragic case, and questions need to be asked. However, the government's response was a knee-jerk reaction, a knee-jerk attack on the Parole Board.

The then attorney-general, Mr Atkinson, went straight to attack the chair of the Parole Board. Many of his statements were factually incorrect, but what he did not even seem to appreciate was that Frances Nelson was not even in the country at the time. She was in England, I understand, visiting sick relatives. In fact, the person who had charge of the decision in relation to Mr Robinson was the deputy of the Parole Board, Mr Tim Bourne. I certainly make no reflection on decisions or actions of Mr Bourne or, for that matter, any other member of the Parole Board. In fact, I note that Frances Nelson came back to Australia and stood by her deputy chair in relation to the events that took place in the Shane Robinson case.

I use that as an example of the government's disrespect towards the Parole Board on a number of occasions. That disrespect has coloured the terms of the Parole Board parole management elements in this bill, in particular. As I said, this bill will receive substantial support from the opposition, especially where it relates to prison management. We think there are worthwhile reforms in terms of prison allowances, prisoner identification, visitor management, prisoner communication, questioning of prisoners, and so forth.

However, we come to this bill very sceptical in relation to the parole management issues. We accept that there is need for reform and our amendments will reflect the need to change what is currently in the bill. I have tabled those amendments and I commend them to members. I will not take the time of the council to argue for them in the second reading stage. Honourable members would have already noticed the fulsome exposition of the proposals in the House of Assembly if they want a preview of the discussion we will have at the committee stage.

I suggest that I leave the exposition of the points in detail to the committee stage, but in terms of a general overview the opposition supports and welcomes many of the matters, particularly as they relate to prison management, and believes the government needs to moderate its campaign against the Parole Board and take more sensible measured reform opportunities in the Parole Board area, and our amendments offer that to the council.