2017-10-30
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to speak today on the Corrections Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2017, which makes a number of amendments to the Corrections Act 1986, particularly with regard to the Adult Parole Board of Victoria and to contraband items in prisons. It also makes amendments to the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004, the Bail Act 1977 and the Victoria Police Act 2013 which are mainly minor and consequential amendments.
I agree with Mr O'Donohue that from time to time we get these bills that make some amendments to the Corrections Act 1986 to deal with things that need clarifying or updating or tightening up. While we will not be opposing this bill, I have some remarks to make, particularly with regard to clause 8 of the bill, which deals with prison contraband. We asked quite a few questions of the minister's office with regard to this bill, and I would like to thank the minister's office for the time they took to respond to our questions with regard to that clause.
The key changes that are made by this bill are that under clause 3 the bill amends the Corrections Act by placing definitions for the terms 'board', 'security officer', 'serious violent offence', 'sexual offence' and 'terrorism or foreign incursion offence' into the same section of the act that contains other defined terms, so it is basically a clearing-up type of amendment under this clause. The term 'security officer' is a new definition for those officers who will be responsible for providing security functions at the adult parole board. That class of officer is created under clause 4.
Clause 8 is probably the most substantial change or provision in the bill. This inserts a new section 31A offence for prisoners to possess certain items in prisons. New subsection 31A(1) states that:
A prisoner must not possess, make, use, control, conceal, give or supply a category 1 item or a category 2 item in a prison without a reasonable excuse.
A category 1 item, which will attract a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, covers explosives, a controlled weapon, a dangerous article or prohibited weapon, a firearm, child abuse material, a device capable of communication using any technology and a drug of dependence. I will be asking the minister in committee — or she may wish to make some comments now — with regard to category 1 items as to what is meant by a 'drug of dependence', because it does not say 'a drug of dependence as defined elsewhere in the statute book' and it does not define it in the bill either. 'Drug of dependence' is a very wide term.
The other issue in terms of this clause, which looks at preventing risks to safety and the good order of the prison and in particular risks to the safety of other prisoners or the safety of prison officers — and indeed risks to the safety of visitors to the prison or any other people who maybe come into a prison, like volunteer visitors and health professionals et cetera — is that I can understand things such as explosives, controlled weapons, dangerous and prohibited weapons and firearms, for example, but why drugs of dependence are actually included in this category I am not quite sure. The other items are clearly items that can cause harm to other people by their use — I do not think I have to explain that — whereas with drugs of dependence I am just not quite sure why they are thrown in category 1.
Category 2 items under this clause, which will attract a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment, include implements or devices used to administer a drug of dependence, a drug or medication that is not prescribed for the prisoner and an electronic storage or recording device that is capable of processing information but not capable of communication, as opposed to the one in category 1, which can be used for communication. Again, particularly with the use of mobile phones and other technology to organise criminal activity I understand why there is a distinction between the two and why they are included.
As stated in the statement of compatibility and in answers we got back from the minister's office with regard to the policy behind these changes, currently under section 50 of the Corrections Act these types of offences can be basically dealt with at the moment by the prison governor by a withdrawal of privileges and that type of thing. I can understand if one has smuggled in a firearm and is maybe planning to use that for nefarious purposes that a reduction of privileges by the governor is not necessarily an appropriate retribution for that type of activity, so I can see the policy behind that. But it is quite a big change, because under this bill the most serious types of contraband will now be punishable by imprisonment and a new criminal offence is created for the possession or use of certain types of contraband in prisons, with the level of penalty based on the gravity or seriousness of the contraband or the conduct. This will address contraband that poses the most serious risk to prisoners' security or causes harm or death et cetera.
It is important to note that this is not a double punishment. Existing section 16 of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides that every term of imprisonment imposed on a prisoner by a court in respect of a prison offence must, unless otherwise directed by the court because of the existence of exceptional circumstances, be served cumulatively on any uncompleted sentence or sentences of imprisonment imposed on that prisoner whether before or at the same time as that term. So it is a big change in regard to the existence of the offence and the penalty that is attached to it.
I would also say that simply increasing penalties for prisoners in relation to contraband may not always be the sole solution to the problems — in particular, as I mentioned before, with the inclusion of drugs of dependence in category 1. It is critical that those prisoners with drug and alcohol issues who are caught with them in prison be given access to high-quality drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Those running such programs need sufficient investment as well as the means to ascertain the size of the programs required and how regularly to run them. This can be accomplished through having data on the waiting lists for such programs.
The minister will remember that I have questioned her about this in Parliament. During the budget estimates hearings this year I also questioned the minister about the extent of the government's additional funding for drug and alcohol programs and whether that would assist with the waiting times for those programs. The minister stated that there were no waiting time measures associated with additional funds the government was providing. In response to my additional question on notice in June this year with regard to the issue of waiting times for programs in prison the minister stated:
There is no average wait time for access to AOD —
alcohol and other drugs —
programs across the system or at individual prisons, as wait times are not routinely collected for AOD programs.
I think this is a serious issue because in this bill we are including in the new provisions the possession or use of a drug of dependence as a category 1 offence but at the same time we are not collecting any data on the waiting times for prisoners who have alcohol and drug problems. But we know from anecdotal evidence and other evidence provided by studies into this issue, which I have raised for many years in this place, that prisoners routinely do not have access to alcohol and drug programs, and if they do, they have access to them towards the end of their prison term, not from the beginning when they first enter prison. We also know that a large number of prisoners do have alcohol and drug problems. So while we are not going to oppose the bill, the issue still needs to be taken seriously. Just punishing prisoners for the possession of drugs in prison is not going to solve the problem.
The Auditor-General addressed this issue in 2003. He said:
Weaknesses in performance reporting, evaluation and risk management practices mean that the Department of Justice does not know whether its prevention and detection controls, or its management and treatment programs are as effective or efficient as they could be. These are areas that the Department of Justice has recognised it needs to improve, and it has started to make changes.
Of course that is now the Department of Justice and Regulation. He also said:
Given the high number of prisoners entering prisons with problematic drug use, completely eliminating prohibited drugs from entering prisons is unrealistic. It would essentially mean stopping prisoner visits, which are an essential part of prisoner rehabilitation and maintaining community and family connections. It is therefore incumbent on prison managers to prevent, as far as possible, drugs from entering their prisons while also working with prisoners to address their drug use. This is consistent with the harm minimisation approach.
I want to really emphasise those points. I am not sure if the minister heard me when she was at the other end of the chamber there, but I was referring to the questions that I have already asked her about the lack of data collection by the department in regard to how long prisoners have to wait for drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. She may want help with the answer to that question.
Clause 9 provides for functions of security officers at a premises where the Adult Parole Board of Victoria meets, where employees of the department are assisting the board to perform its functions are located or if they are required to assist a police officer with the performance of their duties at a premises where the board meets. We support this measure, but I note that Mr O'Donohue has circulated some amendments which include adding protective services officers to the new security officers under this provision in this bill. I was wondering about that amendment because at first glance it seemed like a reasonable amendment. I note that in his contribution Mr Leane mentioned that the government would not be supporting it because the adult parole board does not support it and the police do not support it. I am sure we will probably go to why that is the case in committee stage with the movement of the amendment.
The bill also inserts a new section into the act for the provision of the use of firearms by police that are exercising the duties of a prison officer. It clarifies powers with regard to the removal of electronic monitoring devices from parolees and those subject to community correction orders. It allows the secretary to direct that a prisoner be tested for alcohol or drug use. Again testing people for alcohol and drug use is fine, but a lot of people in prison do have those problems and we really do need to step up the programs to enable those prisoners to leave prison free of their drug and alcohol problems as much as possible.
They are the main provisions of the bill, and the Greens will not be opposing the bill. We will not be supporting the amendment put forward by Mr O'Donohue with regard to prisoners who are on out-of-prison work programs and are earning some money, part of which he proposes should go towards the cost of their incarceration. I find that particular amendment quite disturbing because when you are thinking about who those people are, they may be the very people I have been talking about who have gone to prison with alcohol and drug problems, may have gone through some programs, have tried to do the best they can to rehabilitate themselves and are now out on work programs trying to get their lives back together. They can be among the most vulnerable people.
We know clearly from the evidence that the vast majority of people in prison come from only about six postcodes in Victoria. We know that the vast majority of people in prison have not completed secondary education and very few have any tertiary qualifications. They come from socio-economically disadvantaged areas, and it is incumbent on the community and the state to fund prisons. If we are going to send people to prison, we should fund them, as taxpayers. To suggest that for this group of people — who, by the very fact that they are out on leave working, have been deemed to be of low risk and are putting their lives back together — we should be deducting amounts from their pay I think is quite disturbing, and we will not be supporting it.
To read more in the committee stage, click here.